Future Processing vs Scott Logic: full comparison for 2026
Quick verdict
Future Processing (4.6/5) edges ahead of Scott Logic (4.3/5) overall. Future Processing is the better choice for UK insurers and financial firms, long-term nearshore teams. Scott Logic is the stronger option for capital markets and government, UK-only delivery required. The right choice depends on your project size, budget, and required tech stack.
Future Processing vs Scott Logic: head-to-head summary
| Criterion | Future Processing | Scott Logic |
|---|---|---|
| Founded | 2000 | 2005 |
| HQ | Gliwice, Poland (London office) | Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom |
| Team size | 750–1,000 | 400–500 |
| Rating | 4.6 / 5 | 4.3 / 5 |
| Primary differentiator | Twenty-five years of delivery from Poland with UK-based account leadership in the City | Trading-system and capital-markets engineering from teams based entirely in the UK |
| Pricing model | Time and materials, dedicated team, fixed price | Time and materials, fixed price, capability-based |
| Min. engagement | Not published | Not published |
| Primary tech stack | .NET, Java, Azure | Java, C#, TypeScript |
| Industries served | Financial services, Insurance, Energy, Media, Healthcare | Financial services, Capital markets, Public sector, Energy |
Future Processing vs Scott Logic: overview
Future Processing
Future Processing started in Gliwice, Poland in 2000 and now employs roughly 800 people, with a London office at Gracechurch Street led by a UK managing director. Directory data puts around 45% of its work in financial services, with insurance, energy, media and healthcare making up much of the rest. It sells bespoke development, cloud and data work, and consulting. Delivery happens mainly in Poland, which keeps rates in the Central European band.
Scott Logic
Former Lehman Brothers executive Gary Scott founded Scott Logic in Newcastle in 2005. It now employs 400+ people across Newcastle, London, Edinburgh, Bristol and Leeds, all in the UK. The firm is best known for trading and capital-markets software and for central government digital work. Every engineer is UK-based, which suits security-cleared and data-sensitive projects but rules out offshore cost savings.
Services and capabilities: Future Processing vs Scott Logic
| Capability | Future Processing | Scott Logic |
|---|---|---|
| Custom software development | ✓ | ✓ |
| Mobile app development | ✗ | ✗ |
| Cloud & DevOps | ✓ | ✓ |
| Data & AI | ✓ | ✓ |
| Legacy modernisation | ✓ | ✗ |
| Embedded & IoT | ✗ | ✗ |
| Dedicated team model | ✓ | ✗ |
| Fixed-price projects | ✓ | ✓ |
Tech stack comparison: Future Processing vs Scott Logic
| Framework / platform | Future Processing | Scott Logic |
|---|---|---|
| .NET | ✓ | N/A |
| Java | ✓ | ✓ |
| Python | ✓ | N/A |
| React | ✓ | ✓ |
| AWS | ✓ | ✓ |
| Azure | ✓ | ✓ |
| Kubernetes | N/A | ✓ |
| Embedded | N/A | N/A |
Pricing comparison: Future Processing vs Scott Logic
| Criterion | Future Processing | Scott Logic |
|---|---|---|
| Minimum engagement | Not published | Not published |
| Engagement models | Dedicated team, Fixed project, Time and materials | Fixed project, Time and materials |
| Rate transparency | Not public | Not public |
| Price tier | Mid-market | Mid-market |
Target audience comparison: Future Processing vs Scott Logic
| Dimension | Future Processing | Scott Logic |
|---|---|---|
| Best company size | Mid-market to enterprise | Startup to mid-market |
| Best industries | Financial services, Insurance, Energy | Financial services, Capital markets, Public sector |
| Best use cases | An insurer wants a dedicated .NET and Azure team to modernise policy administration systems., A UK fintech needs a nearshore squad to extend an in-house engineering team. | An investment bank needs a trading front end rebuilt by a UK-cleared team., A government department needs a digital service built to GDS standards. |
| Typical project type | Dedicated team | Fixed project |
Future Processing vs Scott Logic: pros and cons
| Future Processing | |
|---|---|
| + | A London office with a UK managing director means escalations land with someone in your time zone |
| + | Heavy financial-services and insurance exposure suggests familiarity with UK regulated-sector procurement |
| + | Around 800 staff is large enough to grow a team quickly without the overhead of a 10,000-person vendor |
| + | Polish delivery is one hour ahead of the UK, so working days overlap almost completely |
| - | No hardware or embedded engineering capability, so connected-device products need a second supplier |
| - | Polish engineering rates have risen steadily and are now closer to Western European levels than they were a decade ago |
| - | Public pricing and minimum project sizes are not published |
| Scott Logic | |
|---|---|
| + | UK-only staffing makes security clearance and data-residency requirements straightforward |
| + | Rare depth in trading platforms and low-latency financial software |
| + | Regional offices outside London keep rates below the big London consultancies |
| - | No nearshore or offshore delivery, so rates are UK onshore rates for every role |
| - | Narrower industry spread than generalist outsourcing vendors |
Who should choose Future Processing?
A typical fit: an insurer wants a dedicated .NET and Azure team to modernise policy administration systems.
Twenty-five years of delivery from Poland with UK-based account leadership in the City. Minimum engagement is not publicly disclosed. Works best with clients in Financial services, Insurance, Energy, Media, Healthcare.
Who should choose Scott Logic?
A typical fit: an investment bank needs a trading front end rebuilt by a UK-cleared team.
Trading-system and capital-markets engineering from teams based entirely in the UK. Minimum engagement is not publicly disclosed. Works best with clients in Financial services, Capital markets, Public sector, Energy.
Decision matrix: Future Processing vs Scott Logic
| Your situation | Recommended choice |
|---|---|
| You need full-ownership delivery on a defined project scope | Future Processing |
| You need a large dedicated team for an ongoing programme | Future Processing |
| Your budget is at the lower end | Compare: Future Processing (Not published) vs Scott Logic (Not published) |
| You need specialist depth in a specific vertical | Future Processing |
| You want engineers added to your own in-house team | Neither lists team extension; ask about dedicated teams |
| Your product includes hardware, firmware or connected devices | Neither; consider an embedded specialist |
Use case fit: Future Processing vs Scott Logic
| Use case | Future Processing fit | Scott Logic fit | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| An insurer wants a dedicated .NET and Azure team to modernise policy administration systems. | Strong | Limited | Future Processing |
| A UK fintech needs a nearshore squad to extend an in-house engineering team. | Strong | Limited | Future Processing |
| An investment bank needs a trading front end rebuilt by a UK-cleared team. | Limited | Strong | Scott Logic |
| A government department needs a digital service built to GDS standards. | Limited | Strong | Scott Logic |
| You need hardware, firmware or IoT work in the same contract | Limited | Limited | Both equally |
| You want a fixed-price first phase before a longer engagement | Strong | Strong | Both equally |
Verdict: Future Processing vs Scott Logic
Future Processing (4.6/5) is the stronger overall choice for most Software Development Outsourcing projects. Twenty-five years of delivery from Poland with UK-based account leadership in the City.
Scott Logic (4.3/5) is worth a look in a scenario like this: a government department needs a digital service built to GDS standards. If your situation matches that, Scott Logic is a competitive option.
Related comparisons
Future Processing vs Scott Logic FAQ
Is Future Processing better than Scott Logic?
Future Processing (4.6/5) scores higher overall, but "better" depends on your use case. Future Processing's strongest advantage: a London office with a UK managing director means escalations land with someone in your time zone. Scott Logic's strongest advantage: UK-only staffing makes security clearance and data-residency requirements straightforward.
How do Future Processing and Scott Logic differ in pricing?
Future Processing uses time and materials, dedicated team, fixed price pricing. Scott Logic uses time and materials, fixed price, capability-based pricing. Neither firm publishes a full rate card; a discovery call is required for project-specific quotes.
Which is better for enterprise: Future Processing or Scott Logic?
Future Processing is the larger team and typically the better enterprise-scale choice. For very large programmes, verify team size and compliance coverage directly with each company before shortlisting.
What are the main differences between Future Processing and Scott Logic?
Future Processing's primary differentiator is: twenty-five years of delivery from Poland with UK-based account leadership in the City. Scott Logic's primary differentiator is: trading-system and capital-markets engineering from teams based entirely in the UK. They also differ in team size (750–1,000 vs 400–500), minimum engagement (Not published vs Not published), and primary industries served (Financial services, Insurance vs Financial services, Capital markets).
Verify all details directly with each company before making a decision.