Scott Logic vs EPAM Systems: full comparison for 2026
Quick verdict
Scott Logic (4.3/5) edges ahead of EPAM Systems (3.9/5) overall. Scott Logic is the better choice for capital markets and government, UK-only delivery required. EPAM Systems is the stronger option for FTSE-scale programmes, strict compliance, huge teams. The right choice depends on your project size, budget, and required tech stack.
Scott Logic vs EPAM Systems: head-to-head summary
| Criterion | Scott Logic | EPAM Systems |
|---|---|---|
| Founded | 2005 | 1993 |
| HQ | Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom | Newtown, Pennsylvania, United States (London and Newcastle offices) |
| Team size | 400–500 | 50,000+ |
| Rating | 4.3 / 5 | 3.9 / 5 |
| Primary differentiator | Trading-system and capital-markets engineering from teams based entirely in the UK | The largest delivery capacity on this list, with mature compliance and security processes |
| Pricing model | Time and materials, fixed price, capability-based | Time and materials, managed service, fixed price |
| Min. engagement | Not published | Not published |
| Primary tech stack | Java, C#, TypeScript | Java, .NET, AWS |
| Industries served | Financial services, Capital markets, Public sector, Energy | Financial services, Retail, Healthcare, Media, Manufacturing |
Scott Logic vs EPAM Systems: 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.
EPAM Systems
EPAM Systems was founded in 1993 and is headquartered in Newtown, Pennsylvania. It reported more than 62,750 employees in Q1 2026. In the UK it has offices in London and Newcastle, but most delivery comes from Central and Eastern Europe, India and Latin America. Its size suits large regulated programmes better than small or mid-sized builds.
Services and capabilities: Scott Logic vs EPAM Systems
| Capability | Scott Logic | EPAM Systems |
|---|---|---|
| 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 EPAM Systems
| Framework / platform | Scott Logic | EPAM Systems |
|---|---|---|
| .NET | N/A | ✓ |
| Java | ✓ | ✓ |
| Python | N/A | ✓ |
| React | ✓ | N/A |
| AWS | ✓ | ✓ |
| Azure | ✓ | ✓ |
| Kubernetes | ✓ | ✓ |
| Embedded | N/A | N/A |
Pricing comparison: Scott Logic vs EPAM Systems
| Criterion | Scott Logic | EPAM Systems |
|---|---|---|
| Minimum engagement | Not published | Not published |
| Engagement models | Fixed project, Time and materials | Dedicated team, Managed service, Fixed project, Time and materials |
| Rate transparency | Not public | Not public |
| Price tier | Mid-market | Mid-market |
Target audience comparison: Scott Logic vs EPAM Systems
| Dimension | Scott Logic | EPAM Systems |
|---|---|---|
| Best company size | Startup to mid-market | Startup to mid-market |
| Best industries | Financial services, Capital markets, Public sector | Financial services, Retail, Healthcare |
| 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. | A bank needs a 200-person platform programme., A global retailer wants a managed engineering service. |
| Typical project type | Fixed project | Dedicated team |
Scott Logic vs EPAM Systems: 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 |
| EPAM Systems | |
|---|---|
| + | Can staff hundreds of engineers on one programme |
| + | Mature security, audit and compliance processes for regulated buyers |
| + | Public-company reporting |
| - | Little benefit for mid-market buyers, who can get more attention elsewhere |
| - | UK offices are small relative to global delivery |
| - | Account processes are heavy for smaller 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 EPAM Systems?
A typical fit: a bank needs a 200-person platform programme.
The largest delivery capacity on this list, with mature compliance and security processes. Minimum engagement is not publicly disclosed. Works best with clients in Financial services, Retail, Healthcare, Media, Manufacturing.
Decision matrix: Scott Logic vs EPAM Systems
| 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 | EPAM Systems |
| Your budget is at the lower end | Compare: Scott Logic (Not published) vs EPAM Systems (Not published) |
| You need specialist depth in a specific vertical | EPAM Systems |
| 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 EPAM Systems
| Use case | Scott Logic fit | EPAM Systems 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 |
| A bank needs a 200-person platform programme. | Limited | Strong | EPAM Systems |
| A global retailer wants a managed engineering service. | Limited | Strong | EPAM Systems |
| 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 EPAM Systems
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.
EPAM Systems (3.9/5) is worth a look in a scenario like this: a global retailer wants a managed engineering service. If your situation matches that, EPAM Systems is a competitive option.
Related comparisons
Scott Logic vs EPAM Systems FAQ
Is Scott Logic better than EPAM Systems?
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. EPAM Systems's strongest advantage: can staff hundreds of engineers on one programme.
How do Scott Logic and EPAM Systems differ in pricing?
Scott Logic uses time and materials, fixed price, capability-based pricing. EPAM Systems uses time and materials, managed service, fixed price 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 EPAM Systems?
Scott Logic 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 EPAM Systems?
Scott Logic's primary differentiator is: trading-system and capital-markets engineering from teams based entirely in the UK. EPAM Systems's primary differentiator is: the largest delivery capacity on this list, with mature compliance and security processes. They also differ in team size (400–500 vs 50,000+), minimum engagement (Not published vs Not published), and primary industries served (Financial services, Capital markets vs Financial services, Retail).
Verify all details directly with each company before making a decision.