Spyrosoft vs BJSS (CGI): full comparison for 2026
Quick verdict
Spyrosoft (4.2/5) edges ahead of BJSS (CGI) (4.0/5) overall. Spyrosoft is the better choice for automotive and industrial software, UK-led Polish teams. 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.
Spyrosoft vs BJSS (CGI): head-to-head summary
| Criterion | Spyrosoft | BJSS (CGI) |
|---|---|---|
| Founded | 2016 | 1993 |
| HQ | Wrocław, Poland (UK office in Dorset) | Leeds, United Kingdom (owned by CGI) |
| Team size | 1,500+ | 2,000–2,500 |
| Rating | 4.2 / 5 | 4.0 / 5 |
| Primary differentiator | Polish engineering capacity with a UK co-founder running the UK business | Large UK onshore delivery capacity, now backed by CGI's global network |
| Pricing model | Time and materials, dedicated team, fixed price | Time and materials, fixed price, managed service |
| Min. engagement | Not published | Not published |
| Primary tech stack | C++, Java, .NET | Java, .NET, AWS |
| Industries served | Automotive, Financial services, Manufacturing, Healthcare | Public sector, Healthcare, Financial services, Retail, Energy |
Spyrosoft vs BJSS (CGI): overview
Spyrosoft
Spyrosoft was set up in 2016 by a group that included UK-based co-founder Andrew Radcliffe, and its UK entity actually came before its first Polish office. It is headquartered in Wrocław and has grown quickly, with figures ranging from around 800 to 1,900 staff depending on the source. Spyrosoft Ltd runs UK operations from Dorset, with delivery mostly in Poland. Automotive, embedded and industrial software are notable strengths next to standard web and cloud work.
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: Spyrosoft vs BJSS (CGI)
| Capability | Spyrosoft | 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: Spyrosoft vs BJSS (CGI)
| Framework / platform | Spyrosoft | BJSS (CGI) |
|---|---|---|
| .NET | ✓ | ✓ |
| Java | ✓ | ✓ |
| Python | ✓ | ✓ |
| React | N/A | N/A |
| AWS | ✓ | ✓ |
| Azure | ✓ | ✓ |
| Kubernetes | N/A | ✓ |
| Embedded | ✓ | N/A |
Pricing comparison: Spyrosoft vs BJSS (CGI)
| Criterion | Spyrosoft | BJSS (CGI) |
|---|---|---|
| Minimum engagement | Not published | Not published |
| Engagement models | Dedicated team, 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: Spyrosoft vs BJSS (CGI)
| Dimension | Spyrosoft | BJSS (CGI) |
|---|---|---|
| Best company size | Startup to mid-market | Startup to mid-market |
| Best industries | Automotive, Financial services, Manufacturing | Public sector, Healthcare, Financial services |
| Best use cases | An automotive supplier needs infotainment or vehicle software engineers., A UK industrial company needs embedded and cloud developers for a monitoring product. | An NHS trust needs a national-scale digital service., A bank wants a large onshore team with independent testing. |
| Typical project type | Dedicated team | Fixed project |
Spyrosoft vs BJSS (CGI): pros and cons
| Spyrosoft | |
|---|---|
| + | UK leadership is part of the founding team rather than a later sales hire |
| + | Embedded and automotive work adds range for hardware-adjacent projects |
| + | Listed on the Warsaw Stock Exchange, so financial results are public |
| - | Rapid growth through hiring and acquisitions can mean uneven maturity between business units |
| - | The UK office is small; nearly all engineers are in Poland |
| 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 Spyrosoft?
A typical fit: an automotive supplier needs infotainment or vehicle software engineers.
Polish engineering capacity with a UK co-founder running the UK business. Minimum engagement is not publicly disclosed. Works best with clients in Automotive, Financial services, Manufacturing, Healthcare.
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: Spyrosoft vs BJSS (CGI)
| Your situation | Recommended choice |
|---|---|
| You need full-ownership delivery on a defined project scope | Spyrosoft |
| You need a large dedicated team for an ongoing programme | Spyrosoft |
| Your budget is at the lower end | Compare: Spyrosoft (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 | Spyrosoft |
Use case fit: Spyrosoft vs BJSS (CGI)
| Use case | Spyrosoft fit | BJSS (CGI) fit | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| An automotive supplier needs infotainment or vehicle software engineers. | Strong | Limited | Spyrosoft |
| A UK industrial company needs embedded and cloud developers for a monitoring product. | Strong | Limited | Spyrosoft |
| 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 | Strong | Limited | Spyrosoft |
| You want a fixed-price first phase before a longer engagement | Strong | Strong | Both equally |
Verdict: Spyrosoft vs BJSS (CGI)
Spyrosoft (4.2/5) is the stronger overall choice for most Software Development Outsourcing projects. Polish engineering capacity with a UK co-founder running the UK business.
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
Spyrosoft vs BJSS (CGI) FAQ
Is Spyrosoft better than BJSS (CGI)?
Spyrosoft (4.2/5) scores higher overall, but "better" depends on your use case. Spyrosoft's strongest advantage: UK leadership is part of the founding team rather than a later sales hire. BJSS (CGI)'s strongest advantage: long record on large NHS and government programmes.
How do Spyrosoft and BJSS (CGI) differ in pricing?
Spyrosoft uses time and materials, dedicated team, fixed price 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: Spyrosoft 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 Spyrosoft and BJSS (CGI)?
Spyrosoft's primary differentiator is: polish engineering capacity with a UK co-founder running the UK business. BJSS (CGI)'s primary differentiator is: large UK onshore delivery capacity, now backed by CGI's global network. They also differ in team size (1,500+ vs 2,000–2,500), minimum engagement (Not published vs Not published), and primary industries served (Automotive, Financial services vs Public sector, Healthcare).
Verify all details directly with each company before making a decision.