Very vs Capgemini Engineering: full comparison for 2026
Quick verdict
Very (4.2/5) edges ahead of Capgemini Engineering (3.9/5) overall. Very is the better choice for funded US product teams, platform-heavy IoT. Capgemini Engineering is the stronger option for global manufacturers, compliance-heavy programmes. The right choice depends on your project size, budget, and required tech stack.
Very vs Capgemini Engineering: head-to-head summary
| Criterion | Very | Capgemini Engineering |
|---|---|---|
| Founded | 2011 | 1982 |
| HQ | Bozeman, Montana, United States (distributed) | Paris, France |
| Team size | 150–250 | 50,000+ |
| Rating | 4.2 / 5 | 3.9 / 5 |
| Primary differentiator | US-only distributed team with strong product management and platform engineering | The largest engineering bench on this list, with factory and operational technology expertise |
| Pricing model | Time and materials | Time and materials, managed service, outcome-based |
| Min. engagement | $250,000 | Not published |
| Primary tech stack | Embedded C, Elixir, Nerves | Embedded C/C++, AUTOSAR, Industrial protocols |
| Industries served | Industrial equipment, Energy, Consumer electronics, Agriculture | Automotive, Aerospace, Industrial equipment, Energy, Healthcare |
Very vs Capgemini Engineering: overview
Very
Very was founded in 2011 by Ben Wald and started out building software and websites before settling on IoT. Its staff work remotely across the US, with Bozeman, Montana listed as its base, and Built In counts 193 employees. The company covers hardware prototyping, firmware, IoT platforms and apps. Its Clutch profile lists a $250,000 minimum project size and $200 to $300 hourly rates.
Capgemini Engineering
Capgemini Engineering is the result of Capgemini's purchase of Altran, which closed in April 2020. Revelio Labs estimated around 64,700 employees in September 2025, down about 5% on the year. It combines Altran's engineering and R&D services with Capgemini's digital manufacturing work, and analysts pointed to Altran's operational technology skills as the reason for the deal. It is the strongest option here for large, compliance-heavy programmes.
Services and capabilities: Very vs Capgemini Engineering
| Capability | Very | Capgemini Engineering |
|---|---|---|
| Electronics & PCB design | ✓ | ✓ |
| Firmware & embedded software | ✓ | ✓ |
| Wireless connectivity | ✗ | ✓ |
| IoT cloud platforms | ✓ | ✓ |
| Mobile & web apps | ✓ | ✗ |
| Edge AI & data | ✓ | ✓ |
| Prototyping & manufacturing support | ✗ | ✗ |
| Dedicated team model | ✗ | ✓ |
Tech stack comparison: Very vs Capgemini Engineering
| Framework / platform | Very | Capgemini Engineering |
|---|---|---|
| Embedded C | ✓ | ✓ |
| Embedded Linux | N/A | N/A |
| RTOS | N/A | N/A |
| BLE | N/A | N/A |
| LoRaWAN | N/A | N/A |
| AWS IoT | ✓ | ✓ |
| Azure IoT | N/A | ✓ |
| FPGA | N/A | N/A |
Pricing comparison: Very vs Capgemini Engineering
| Criterion | Very | Capgemini Engineering |
|---|---|---|
| Minimum engagement | $250,000 | Not published |
| Engagement models | Time and materials, Team extension | Dedicated team, Managed service, Time and materials |
| Rate transparency | Minimum disclosed | Not public |
| Price tier | Mid-market | Mid-market |
Target audience comparison: Very vs Capgemini Engineering
| Dimension | Very | Capgemini Engineering |
|---|---|---|
| Best company size | Startup to mid-market | Startup to mid-market |
| Best industries | Industrial equipment, Energy, Consumer electronics | Automotive, Aerospace, Industrial equipment |
| Best use cases | A funded start-up needs a connected product and platform built by a US team., An energy company wants a fleet monitoring platform. | An aerospace firm needs certified embedded engineering., A manufacturer wants a smart factory rolled out across sites. |
| Typical project type | Time and materials | Dedicated team |
Very vs Capgemini Engineering: pros and cons
| Very | |
|---|---|
| + | US-based engineers and product managers |
| + | Strong on cloud platforms and data, not just devices |
| + | Experience taking products from prototype to launch |
| - | $250,000 minimum and $200 to $300 hourly rates rule out most small projects |
| - | Less electronics design depth than dedicated hardware houses |
| Capgemini Engineering | |
|---|---|
| + | Can run very large global engineering programmes |
| + | Factory and operational technology expertise from Altran |
| + | Mature compliance and quality systems |
| - | Headcount fell about 5% in 2025 |
| - | Slow and costly for small product teams |
Who should choose Very?
A typical fit: a funded start-up needs a connected product and platform built by a US team.
US-only distributed team with strong product management and platform engineering. Minimum engagement starts at $250,000. Works best with clients in Industrial equipment, Energy, Consumer electronics, Agriculture.
Who should choose Capgemini Engineering?
A typical fit: an aerospace firm needs certified embedded engineering.
The largest engineering bench on this list, with factory and operational technology expertise. Minimum engagement is not publicly disclosed. Works best with clients in Automotive, Aerospace, Industrial equipment, Energy, Healthcare.
Decision matrix: Very vs Capgemini Engineering
| Your situation | Recommended choice |
|---|---|
| You need full-ownership delivery on a defined project scope | Both offer fixed-price models |
| You need a large dedicated team for an ongoing programme | Capgemini Engineering |
| Your budget is at the lower end | Compare: Very ($250,000) vs Capgemini Engineering (Not published) |
| You need specialist depth in a specific vertical | Capgemini Engineering |
| You want engineers added to your own in-house team | Very |
| You need the circuit board designed as well as the firmware | Very |
Use case fit: Very vs Capgemini Engineering
| Use case | Very fit | Capgemini Engineering fit | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| A funded start-up needs a connected product and platform built by a US team. | Strong | Limited | Very |
| An energy company wants a fleet monitoring platform. | Strong | Limited | Very |
| An aerospace firm needs certified embedded engineering. | Limited | Strong | Capgemini Engineering |
| A manufacturer wants a smart factory rolled out across sites. | Limited | Strong | Capgemini Engineering |
| You need custom electronics designed, not only firmware | Strong | Strong | Both equally |
| You want a fixed-price first phase before a longer engagement | Limited | Limited | Both equally |
Verdict: Very vs Capgemini Engineering
Very (4.2/5) is the stronger overall choice for most IoT Development projects. US-only distributed team with strong product management and platform engineering.
Capgemini Engineering (3.9/5) is worth a look in a scenario like this: a manufacturer wants a smart factory rolled out across sites. If your situation matches that, Capgemini Engineering is a competitive option.
Related comparisons
Very vs Capgemini Engineering FAQ
Is Very better than Capgemini Engineering?
Very (4.2/5) scores higher overall, but "better" depends on your use case. Very's strongest advantage: US-based engineers and product managers. Capgemini Engineering's strongest advantage: can run very large global engineering programmes.
How do Very and Capgemini Engineering differ in pricing?
Very uses time and materials pricing with a minimum engagement of $250,000. Capgemini Engineering uses time and materials, managed service, outcome-based pricing. Neither firm publishes a full rate card; a discovery call is required for project-specific quotes.
Which is better for enterprise: Very or Capgemini Engineering?
Very 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 Very and Capgemini Engineering?
Very's primary differentiator is: US-only distributed team with strong product management and platform engineering. Capgemini Engineering's primary differentiator is: the largest engineering bench on this list, with factory and operational technology expertise. They also differ in team size (150–250 vs 50,000+), minimum engagement ($250,000 vs Not published), and primary industries served (Industrial equipment, Energy vs Automotive, Aerospace).
Verify all details directly with each company before making a decision.