Infosys vs Endava: full comparison for 2026
Quick verdict
Infosys (4.2/5) edges ahead of Endava (4.1/5) overall. Infosys is the better choice for large enterprises needing broad cloud and AI transformation capacity. Endava is the stronger option for payments and financial-services enterprises wanting mid-tier CEE delivery scale. The right choice depends on your project size, budget, and required tech stack.
Infosys vs Endava: head-to-head summary
| Criterion | Infosys | Endava |
|---|---|---|
| Founded | 1981 | 2000 |
| HQ | Bengaluru, India | London, United Kingdom |
| Team size | 328,000+ | 11,300+ |
| Rating | 4.2 / 5 | 4.1 / 5 |
| Primary differentiator | A large, mature global delivery organization with dedicated cloud and AI practices | A publicly listed, CEE-anchored delivery model at a scale between the mega-giants and boutique firms |
| Pricing model | Enterprise consulting and managed-services engagements | Dedicated-team and consulting engagements |
| Min. engagement | Not published | Not published |
| Primary tech stack | AWS, Azure, GCP | Java, .NET, AWS |
| Industries served | Financial services, Retail, Manufacturing, Healthcare | Payments, Banking, Insurance, Retail |
Infosys vs Endava: overview
Infosys
Infosys was founded on July 2, 1981 by seven engineers in Pune before relocating its headquarters to Bengaluru, and has since grown to more than 328,000 employees serving enterprise clients globally. It runs dedicated practices in cloud, AI, data, and enterprise application services, and its scale gives it staffing depth for large digital transformation programs. Like the other Indian IT giants on this list, its size means engagements typically run through structured account management rather than direct engineer access.
Endava
Endava was founded in 2000 and is headquartered in London, with roughly 11,300 employees delivering outsourced software development and IT consulting primarily through Central and Eastern European delivery centers. Listed on the New York Stock Exchange, it occupies a mid-tier scale below the true mega-giants but well above most boutique firms, with named practices in payments, banking, and insurance technology. Its CEE-anchored delivery model puts it in similar territory to EPAM, though at roughly a fifth of EPAM's global headcount.
Services and capabilities: Infosys vs Endava
| Capability | Infosys | Endava |
|---|---|---|
| Enterprise modernization | ✓ | ✗ |
| Cloud & DevOps | ✓ | ✓ |
| AI/ML development | ✓ | ✗ |
| Custom software development | ✗ | ✓ |
| Staff augmentation | ✗ | ✗ |
| Dedicated team model | ✓ | ✓ |
Tech stack comparison: Infosys vs Endava
| Framework / platform | Infosys | Endava |
|---|---|---|
| AWS | ✓ | ✓ |
| Azure | ✓ | N/A |
| SAP | ✓ | N/A |
| Java | N/A | ✓ |
| React | N/A | N/A |
Pricing comparison: Infosys vs Endava
| Criterion | Infosys | Endava |
|---|---|---|
| Minimum engagement | Not published | Not published |
| Engagement models | Consulting, Dedicated team, Managed services | Dedicated team, Consulting, Fixed project |
| Rate transparency | Not public | Not public |
| Price tier | Mid-market | Mid-market |
Target audience comparison: Infosys vs Endava
| Dimension | Infosys | Endava |
|---|---|---|
| Best company size | Startup to mid-market | Startup to mid-market |
| Best industries | Financial services, Retail, Manufacturing | Payments, Banking, Insurance |
| Best use cases | An enterprise running a large cloud migration or AI transformation program., A buyer wanting a globally established vendor with deep vertical practices. | A payments or banking enterprise wanting a publicly listed, CEE-delivered vendor., A buyer wanting mid-tier scale without mega-giant account layers. |
| Typical project type | Consulting | Dedicated team |
Infosys vs Endava: pros and cons
| Infosys | |
|---|---|
| + | More than 40 years of continuous operation with a large, mature delivery organization. |
| + | Dedicated cloud, AI, and data practices at enterprise scale. |
| + | Broad industry coverage across financial services, retail, and manufacturing. |
| - | Structured account management typical of a 300,000+ person organization |
| - | Less differentiated for a buyer needing a narrow technical specialty |
| Endava | |
|---|---|
| + | Publicly listed on the NYSE, giving financial transparency at a mid-tier scale. |
| + | Named payments, banking, and insurance technology practices. |
| + | Central and Eastern European delivery model with more than two decades of history. |
| - | Much smaller global delivery capacity than the true mega-giants for the largest programs |
| - | Less geographic diversity than firms with delivery centers across multiple continents |
Who should choose Infosys?
A typical fit: an enterprise running a large cloud migration or AI transformation program.
A large, mature global delivery organization with dedicated cloud and AI practices. Minimum engagement is not publicly disclosed. Works best with clients in Financial services, Retail, Manufacturing, Healthcare.
Who should choose Endava?
A typical fit: a payments or banking enterprise wanting a publicly listed, CEE-delivered vendor.
A publicly listed, CEE-anchored delivery model at a scale between the mega-giants and boutique firms. Minimum engagement is not publicly disclosed. Works best with clients in Payments, Banking, Insurance, Retail.
Decision matrix: Infosys vs Endava
| Your situation | Recommended choice |
|---|---|
| You need full-ownership delivery on a defined project scope | Endava |
| You need a large dedicated team for an ongoing programme | Infosys |
| Your budget is at the lower end | Compare: Infosys (Not published) vs Endava (Not published) |
| You need specialist depth in a specific vertical | Infosys |
| You need staff augmentation or team extension | Neither; consider alternatives that offer staff aug |
| You need consulting before committing to a build | Both may offer discovery engagements |
Use case fit: Infosys vs Endava
| Use case | Infosys fit | Endava fit | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| An enterprise running a large cloud migration or AI transformation program. | Strong | Strong | Both equally |
| A buyer wanting a globally established vendor with deep vertical practices. | Strong | Strong | Both equally |
| A payments or banking enterprise wanting a publicly listed, CEE-delivered vendor. | Strong | Strong | Both equally |
| A buyer wanting mid-tier scale without mega-giant account layers. | Strong | Strong | Both equally |
| Fixed-price build | Limited | Limited | Both equally |
| Staff augmentation | Limited | Limited | Both equally |
Verdict: Infosys vs Endava
Infosys (4.2/5) is the stronger overall choice for most IT Outsourcing projects. A large, mature global delivery organization with dedicated cloud and AI practices.
Endava (4.1/5) is worth a look if you need a buyer wanting mid-tier scale without mega-giant account layers. If your situation matches that, Endava is a competitive option.
Related comparisons
Infosys vs Endava FAQ
Is Infosys better than Endava?
Infosys (4.2/5) scores higher overall, but "better" depends on your use case. Infosys's strongest advantage: more than 40 years of continuous operation with a large, mature delivery organization. Endava's strongest advantage: publicly listed on the NYSE, giving financial transparency at a mid-tier scale.
How do Infosys and Endava differ in pricing?
Infosys uses enterprise consulting and managed-services engagements pricing. Endava uses dedicated-team and consulting engagements pricing. Neither firm publishes a full rate card; a discovery call is required for project-specific quotes.
Which is better for enterprise: Infosys or Endava?
Infosys 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 Infosys and Endava?
Infosys's primary differentiator is: a large, mature global delivery organization with dedicated cloud and AI practices. Endava's primary differentiator is: a publicly listed, CEE-anchored delivery model at a scale between the mega-giants and boutique firms. They also differ in team size (328,000+ vs 11,300+), minimum engagement (Not published vs Not published), and primary industries served (Financial services, Retail vs Payments, Banking).
Verify all details directly with each company before making a decision.