Scott Logic vs BJSS (CGI): full comparison for 2026
Quick verdict
Scott Logic (4.3/5) edges ahead of BJSS (CGI) (4.0/5) overall. Scott Logic is the better choice for capital markets and government, UK-only delivery required. BJSS (CGI) is the stronger option for NHS and government programmes, large onshore delivery. The right choice depends on your project size, budget, and required tech stack.
Scott Logic vs BJSS (CGI): head-to-head summary
| Criterion | Scott Logic | BJSS (CGI) |
|---|---|---|
| Founded | 2005 | 1993 |
| HQ | Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom | Leeds, United Kingdom (owned by CGI) |
| Team size | 400–500 | 2,000–2,500 |
| Rating | 4.3 / 5 | 4.0 / 5 |
| Primary differentiator | Trading-system and capital-markets engineering from teams based entirely in the UK | Large UK onshore delivery capacity, now backed by CGI's global network |
| Pricing model | Time and materials, fixed price, capability-based | Time and materials, fixed price, managed service |
| Min. engagement | Not published | Not published |
| Primary tech stack | Java, C#, TypeScript | Java, .NET, AWS |
| Industries served | Financial services, Capital markets, Public sector, Energy | Public sector, Healthcare, Financial services, Retail, Energy |
Scott Logic vs BJSS (CGI): overview
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.
BJSS (CGI)
BJSS was founded in Leeds in 1993 and grew into one of the UK's largest independent technology consultancies before CGI completed its acquisition in February 2025. The deal brought about 2,400 BJSS staff into CGI and took CGI's UK headcount past 8,500. BJSS teams are being merged into CGI's metro-based UK operating model. UK clients get the scale and governance of a global group, with nearshore capacity now available through CGI centres such as Portugal.
Services and capabilities: Scott Logic vs BJSS (CGI)
| Capability | Scott Logic | BJSS (CGI) |
|---|---|---|
| Custom software development | ✓ | ✓ |
| Mobile app development | ✗ | ✗ |
| Cloud & DevOps | ✓ | ✓ |
| Data & AI | ✓ | ✓ |
| Legacy modernisation | ✗ | ✗ |
| Embedded & IoT | ✗ | ✗ |
| Dedicated team model | ✗ | ✗ |
| Fixed-price projects | ✓ | ✓ |
Tech stack comparison: Scott Logic vs BJSS (CGI)
| Framework / platform | Scott Logic | BJSS (CGI) |
|---|---|---|
| .NET | N/A | ✓ |
| Java | ✓ | ✓ |
| Python | N/A | ✓ |
| React | ✓ | N/A |
| AWS | ✓ | ✓ |
| Azure | ✓ | ✓ |
| Kubernetes | ✓ | ✓ |
| Embedded | N/A | N/A |
Pricing comparison: Scott Logic vs BJSS (CGI)
| Criterion | Scott Logic | BJSS (CGI) |
|---|---|---|
| Minimum engagement | Not published | Not published |
| Engagement models | Fixed project, Time and materials | Fixed project, Managed service, Time and materials |
| Rate transparency | Not public | Not public |
| Price tier | Mid-market | Mid-market |
Target audience comparison: Scott Logic vs BJSS (CGI)
| Dimension | Scott Logic | BJSS (CGI) |
|---|---|---|
| Best company size | Startup to mid-market | Startup to mid-market |
| Best industries | Financial services, Capital markets, Public sector | Public sector, Healthcare, Financial services |
| Best use cases | 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. | An NHS trust needs a national-scale digital service., A bank wants a large onshore team with independent testing. |
| Typical project type | Fixed project | Fixed project |
Scott Logic vs BJSS (CGI): pros and cons
| 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 |
| BJSS (CGI) | |
|---|---|
| + | Long record on large NHS and government programmes |
| + | CGI ownership adds financial stability and access to nearshore centres |
| + | Strong testing and quality engineering practice |
| - | Acquired by CGI in 2025, and integration into CGI's model may change account teams and processes |
| - | Large-consultancy pricing and governance are heavy for small projects |
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.
Who should choose BJSS (CGI)?
A typical fit: an NHS trust needs a national-scale digital service.
Large UK onshore delivery capacity, now backed by CGI's global network. Minimum engagement is not publicly disclosed. Works best with clients in Public sector, Healthcare, Financial services, Retail, Energy.
Decision matrix: Scott Logic vs BJSS (CGI)
| Your situation | Recommended choice |
|---|---|
| You need full-ownership delivery on a defined project scope | Scott Logic |
| You need a large dedicated team for an ongoing programme | Check each company's engagement model |
| Your budget is at the lower end | Compare: Scott Logic (Not published) vs BJSS (CGI) (Not published) |
| You need specialist depth in a specific vertical | BJSS (CGI) |
| 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: Scott Logic vs BJSS (CGI)
| Use case | Scott Logic fit | BJSS (CGI) fit | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| An investment bank needs a trading front end rebuilt by a UK-cleared team. | Strong | Limited | Scott Logic |
| A government department needs a digital service built to GDS standards. | Strong | Limited | Scott Logic |
| An NHS trust needs a national-scale digital service. | Limited | Strong | BJSS (CGI) |
| A bank wants a large onshore team with independent testing. | Limited | Strong | BJSS (CGI) |
| 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: Scott Logic vs BJSS (CGI)
Scott Logic (4.3/5) is the stronger overall choice for most Software Development Outsourcing projects. Trading-system and capital-markets engineering from teams based entirely in the UK.
BJSS (CGI) (4.0/5) is worth a look in a scenario like this: a bank wants a large onshore team with independent testing. If your situation matches that, BJSS (CGI) is a competitive option.
Related comparisons
Scott Logic vs BJSS (CGI) FAQ
Is Scott Logic better than BJSS (CGI)?
Scott Logic (4.3/5) scores higher overall, but "better" depends on your use case. Scott Logic's strongest advantage: UK-only staffing makes security clearance and data-residency requirements straightforward. BJSS (CGI)'s strongest advantage: long record on large NHS and government programmes.
How do Scott Logic and BJSS (CGI) differ in pricing?
Scott Logic uses time and materials, fixed price, capability-based pricing. BJSS (CGI) uses time and materials, fixed price, managed service pricing. Neither firm publishes a full rate card; a discovery call is required for project-specific quotes.
Which is better for enterprise: Scott Logic or BJSS (CGI)?
BJSS (CGI) 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 Scott Logic and BJSS (CGI)?
Scott Logic's primary differentiator is: trading-system and capital-markets engineering from teams based entirely in the UK. BJSS (CGI)'s primary differentiator is: large UK onshore delivery capacity, now backed by CGI's global network. They also differ in team size (400–500 vs 2,000–2,500), minimum engagement (Not published vs Not published), and primary industries served (Financial services, Capital markets vs Public sector, Healthcare).
Verify all details directly with each company before making a decision.