Endava vs Boldare: full comparison for 2026
Quick verdict
Endava (4.3/5) edges ahead of Boldare (3.8/5) overall. Endava is the better choice for UK financial services firms wanting a publicly listed, London-headquartered vendor. Boldare is the stronger option for UK buyers curious about a self-managed, holacracy-run delivery team. The right choice depends on your project size, budget, and required tech stack.
Endava vs Boldare: head-to-head summary
| Criterion | Endava | Boldare |
|---|---|---|
| Founded | 2000 | 2004 |
| HQ | London, United Kingdom | Gliwice, Poland |
| Team size | 11,300+ | 100–250 (per company website; independently unverifiable precise figure) |
| Rating | 4.3 / 5 | 3.8 / 5 |
| Primary differentiator | A publicly traded, London-headquartered company with named payments and banking technology practices | A verifiable holacracy-style, self-managed organizational structure, unusual among outsourcing companies |
| Pricing model | Dedicated-team and consulting engagements | Dedicated-team and fixed-project engagements |
| Min. engagement | Not published | Not published |
| Primary tech stack | Java, .NET, AWS | React, Node.js, Vue.js |
| Industries served | Payments, Banking, Insurance, Retail | SaaS, Manufacturing, Retail |
Endava vs Boldare: overview
Endava
Endava was founded in London in 2000 and remains headquartered there today, now listed on the New York Stock Exchange, with roughly 11,300 employees delivering primarily out of Central and Eastern European centers. That combination, UK incorporation with public-company financial transparency, is genuinely rare among the companies serving British buyers on this list. Named practices in payments, banking, and insurance technology give it real depth in the financial services sector UK buyers frequently need.
Boldare
Boldare was founded in Gliwice, Poland in 2004 and has spent two decades building digital products for international clients, organizing itself internally under a holacracy-style, self-managed structure rather than a traditional management hierarchy. That EU headquarters gives UK buyers the same straightforward GDPR posture as its Polish peers, while its unconventional internal structure is a genuine, verifiable differentiator for a buyer curious how the actual delivery team is organized, rather than a marketing phrase.
Services and capabilities: Endava vs Boldare
| Capability | Endava | Boldare |
|---|---|---|
| Custom build | ✗ | ✓ |
| Consulting | ✗ | ✗ |
| Integration | ✗ | ✗ |
| Staff augmentation | ✗ | ✗ |
| Fixed-price projects | ✓ | ✓ |
| Dedicated team model | ✓ | ✓ |
Tech stack comparison: Endava vs Boldare
| Framework / platform | Endava | Boldare |
|---|---|---|
| React | N/A | ✓ |
| AWS | ✓ | N/A |
| Node.js | N/A | ✓ |
| Java | ✓ | N/A |
| .NET | ✓ | N/A |
Pricing comparison: Endava vs Boldare
| Criterion | Endava | Boldare |
|---|---|---|
| Minimum engagement | Not published | Not published |
| Engagement models | Dedicated team, Consulting, Fixed project | Dedicated team, Fixed project |
| Rate transparency | Not public | Not public |
| Price tier | Mid-market | Mid-market |
Target audience comparison: Endava vs Boldare
| Dimension | Endava | Boldare |
|---|---|---|
| Best company size | Startup to mid-market | Startup to mid-market |
| Best industries | Payments, Banking, Insurance | SaaS, Manufacturing, Retail |
| Best use cases | A UK bank or insurer wanting a publicly listed, London-headquartered technology partner., A payments company needing named domain expertise rather than generalist development. | A UK product company interested in a self-organizing delivery team model., A buyer wanting an established, EU-based product studio for a long-term build. |
| Typical project type | Dedicated team | Dedicated team |
Endava vs Boldare: pros and cons
| Endava | |
|---|---|
| + | Publicly listed on the NYSE and headquartered in London since founding. |
| + | Named payments, banking, and insurance technology practices relevant to UK financial services. |
| + | More than two decades of CEE delivery experience. |
| - | Mid-tier delivery capacity, smaller than the true mega-giants for very large programs |
| - | Premium pricing typical of a publicly listed, financial-services-focused vendor |
| Boldare | |
|---|---|
| + | Two decades of continuous operation since 2004. |
| + | Verifiable holacracy-style, self-managed internal structure. |
| + | EU headquarters simplifies GDPR-aligned data handling for UK clients. |
| - | Self-managed organizational model may be unfamiliar territory for a buyer expecting a conventional account-management structure |
| - | No dedicated UK office; contact runs through the Gliwice base |
Who should choose Endava?
A typical fit: a UK bank or insurer wanting a publicly listed, London-headquartered technology partner.
A publicly traded, London-headquartered company with named payments and banking technology practices. Minimum engagement is not publicly disclosed. Works best with clients in Payments, Banking, Insurance, Retail.
Who should choose Boldare?
A typical fit: a UK product company interested in a self-organizing delivery team model.
A verifiable holacracy-style, self-managed organizational structure, unusual among outsourcing companies. Minimum engagement is not publicly disclosed. Works best with clients in SaaS, Manufacturing, Retail.
Decision matrix: Endava vs Boldare
| 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 | Endava |
| Your budget is at the lower end | Compare: Endava (Not published) vs Boldare (Not published) |
| You need specialist depth in a specific vertical | Endava |
| 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: Endava vs Boldare
| Use case | Endava fit | Boldare fit | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| A UK bank or insurer wanting a publicly listed, London-headquartered technology partner. | Strong | Strong | Both equally |
| A payments company needing named domain expertise rather than generalist development. | Strong | Strong | Both equally |
| A UK product company interested in a self-organizing delivery team model. | Strong | Strong | Both equally |
| A buyer wanting an established, EU-based product studio for a long-term build. | Strong | Strong | Both equally |
| Fixed-price build | Limited | Limited | Both equally |
| Staff augmentation | Limited | Limited | Both equally |
Verdict: Endava vs Boldare
Endava (4.3/5) is the stronger overall choice for most Software Outsourcing (UK) projects. A publicly traded, London-headquartered company with named payments and banking technology practices.
Boldare (3.8/5) is worth a look if you need a buyer wanting an established, EU-based product studio for a long-term build. If your situation matches that, Boldare is a competitive option.
Related comparisons
Endava vs Boldare FAQ
Is Endava better than Boldare?
Endava (4.3/5) scores higher overall, but "better" depends on your use case. Endava's strongest advantage: publicly listed on the NYSE and headquartered in London since founding. Boldare's strongest advantage: two decades of continuous operation since 2004.
How do Endava and Boldare differ in pricing?
Endava uses dedicated-team and consulting engagements pricing. Boldare uses dedicated-team and fixed-project engagements pricing. Neither firm publishes a full rate card; a discovery call is required for project-specific quotes.
Which is better for enterprise: Endava or Boldare?
Boldare 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 Endava and Boldare?
Endava's primary differentiator is: a publicly traded, London-headquartered company with named payments and banking technology practices. Boldare's primary differentiator is: a verifiable holacracy-style, self-managed organizational structure, unusual among outsourcing companies. They also differ in team size (11,300+ vs 100–250 (per company website; independently unverifiable precise figure)), minimum engagement (Not published vs Not published), and primary industries served (Payments, Banking vs SaaS, Manufacturing).
Verify all details directly with each company before making a decision.