Endava vs Leobit: full comparison for 2026
Quick verdict
Endava (4.3/5) edges ahead of Leobit (3.8/5) overall. Endava is the better choice for UK financial services firms wanting a publicly listed, London-headquartered vendor. Leobit is the stronger option for UK product companies wanting a stable, long-term dedicated engineering team. The right choice depends on your project size, budget, and required tech stack.
Endava vs Leobit: head-to-head summary
| Criterion | Endava | Leobit |
|---|---|---|
| Founded | 2000 | 2010 |
| HQ | London, United Kingdom | Lviv, Ukraine |
| Team size | 11,300+ | 150–300 (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 | Long-term embedded teams, within UK working-hours overlap, instead of the fixed-scope project model most peers default to |
| Pricing model | Dedicated-team and consulting engagements | Dedicated-team engagements, typically long-term |
| Min. engagement | Not published | Not published |
| Primary tech stack | Java, .NET, AWS | React, Node.js, .NET |
| Industries served | Payments, Banking, Insurance, Retail | Enterprise software, Retail |
Endava vs Leobit: 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.
Leobit
Leobit's actual pitch is continuity over years: its engineers embed directly in a client's own product roadmap under long-term managed arrangements, run out of Lviv since the company's founding around 2010, instead of delivering a project and handing it off. That suits a UK buyer specifically, given a Lviv timezone close enough for genuine working-day overlap. It remains boutique-scale compared with the enterprise firms on this list, without one single named industry specialization in its public materials.
Services and capabilities: Endava vs Leobit
| Capability | Endava | Leobit |
|---|---|---|
| Custom build | ✗ | ✓ |
| Consulting | ✗ | ✗ |
| Integration | ✗ | ✗ |
| Staff augmentation | ✗ | ✗ |
| Fixed-price projects | ✓ | ✗ |
| Dedicated team model | ✓ | ✓ |
Tech stack comparison: Endava vs Leobit
| Framework / platform | Endava | Leobit |
|---|---|---|
| React | N/A | ✓ |
| AWS | ✓ | ✓ |
| Node.js | N/A | ✓ |
| Java | ✓ | N/A |
| .NET | ✓ | ✓ |
Pricing comparison: Endava vs Leobit
| Criterion | Endava | Leobit |
|---|---|---|
| Minimum engagement | Not published | Not published |
| Engagement models | Dedicated team, Consulting, Fixed project | Dedicated team |
| Rate transparency | Not public | Not public |
| Price tier | Mid-market | Mid-market |
Target audience comparison: Endava vs Leobit
| Dimension | Endava | Leobit |
|---|---|---|
| Best company size | Startup to mid-market | Startup to mid-market |
| Best industries | Payments, Banking, Insurance | Enterprise software, 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 wanting a long-term dedicated team embedded in its own roadmap., A buyer prioritizing team continuity over a quick fixed-scope handoff. |
| Typical project type | Dedicated team | Dedicated team |
Endava vs Leobit: 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 |
| Leobit | |
|---|---|
| + | Business model built specifically around long-term managed engineering teams. |
| + | Lviv timezone allows genuine UK working-day overlap. |
| + | Boutique scale gives closer client access than a large firm. |
| - | No clearly named industry or technical specialization beyond general custom development |
| - | No dedicated UK office among the companies on this list |
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 Leobit?
A typical fit: a UK product company wanting a long-term dedicated team embedded in its own roadmap.
Long-term embedded teams, within UK working-hours overlap, instead of the fixed-scope project model most peers default to. Minimum engagement is not publicly disclosed. Works best with clients in Enterprise software, Retail.
Decision matrix: Endava vs Leobit
| 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 Leobit (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 Leobit
| Use case | Endava fit | Leobit 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 wanting a long-term dedicated team embedded in its own roadmap. | Strong | Strong | Both equally |
| A buyer prioritizing team continuity over a quick fixed-scope handoff. | Strong | Strong | Both equally |
| Fixed-price build | Limited | Limited | Both equally |
| Staff augmentation | Limited | Limited | Both equally |
Verdict: Endava vs Leobit
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.
Leobit (3.8/5) is worth a look if you need a buyer prioritizing team continuity over a quick fixed-scope handoff. If your situation matches that, Leobit is a competitive option.
Related comparisons
Endava vs Leobit FAQ
Is Endava better than Leobit?
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. Leobit's strongest advantage: business model built specifically around long-term managed engineering teams.
How do Endava and Leobit differ in pricing?
Endava uses dedicated-team and consulting engagements pricing. Leobit uses dedicated-team engagements, typically long-term pricing. Neither firm publishes a full rate card; a discovery call is required for project-specific quotes.
Which is better for enterprise: Endava or Leobit?
Leobit 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 Leobit?
Endava's primary differentiator is: a publicly traded, London-headquartered company with named payments and banking technology practices. Leobit's primary differentiator is: long-term embedded teams, within UK working-hours overlap, instead of the fixed-scope project model most peers default to. They also differ in team size (11,300+ vs 150–300 (per company website; independently unverifiable precise figure)), minimum engagement (Not published vs Not published), and primary industries served (Payments, Banking vs Enterprise software, Retail).
Verify all details directly with each company before making a decision.