GlobalLogic vs Very: full comparison for 2026
Quick verdict
GlobalLogic (3.8/5) edges ahead of Very (3.8/5) overall. GlobalLogic is the better choice for enterprises bundling embedded into larger programmes. Very is the stronger option for US companies building a first connected product. The right choice depends on your project size, budget, and required tech stack.
GlobalLogic vs Very: head-to-head summary
| Criterion | GlobalLogic | Very |
|---|---|---|
| Founded | 2000 | 2011 |
| HQ | San Jose, California, USA | USA (fully distributed) |
| Team size | 30,000+ | 51–200 |
| Rating | 3.8 / 5 | 3.8 / 5 |
| Primary differentiator | Global delivery capacity with embedded work attached to large digital programmes | Product-strategy-led IoT development with Nerves and Elixir experience |
| Pricing model | Time & materials, dedicated team | Time & materials, fixed project |
| Min. engagement | Not disclosed | Not disclosed |
| Primary tech stack | C, C++, Embedded Linux | C, Elixir, Nerves |
| Industries served | Automotive, Medical devices, Telecom & broadcast, Industrial IoT | Industrial IoT, Consumer electronics, Energy & EV charging |
GlobalLogic vs Very: overview
GlobalLogic
GlobalLogic was founded in Silicon Valley in 2000 and acquired by Hitachi in 2021. Its 2025 sustainability report counts 31,964 full-time employees. Embedded engineering is one listed service among many, and recent embedded work includes a January 2026 extension of its partnership with automotive software company Elektrobit for software-defined vehicles. Hitachi plans to merge GlobalLogic with Hitachi Digital Services in 2027. For most firmware buyers it is a scale option, used when the device is one part of a much larger digital programme.
Very
Very is a US IoT engineering firm that grew out of a design and development agency founded in 2011 and now works as a distributed team, with its earlier base in Chattanooga, Tennessee. Directory listings put its size at 51 to 200 people. It builds IoT products across hardware engineering, firmware, mobile apps and data, and it hired a co-author of the Nerves project, which runs Elixir on embedded Linux. Reviews mention hardware, firmware, React Native and AI feature work, so firmware is one part of a broader product offer.
Services and capabilities: GlobalLogic vs Very
| Capability | GlobalLogic | Very |
|---|---|---|
| Bare-metal & RTOS firmware | ✗ | ✗ |
| Embedded Linux & BSP | ✓ | ✓ |
| Electronics & PCB design | ✗ | ✓ |
| Wireless & IoT connectivity | ✓ | ✓ |
| Secure boot & OTA | ✗ | ✗ |
| FPGA development | ✗ | ✗ |
| Firmware testing & HIL | ✓ | ✗ |
| Dedicated team model | ✓ | ✗ |
Tech stack comparison: GlobalLogic vs Very
| Framework / platform | GlobalLogic | Very |
|---|---|---|
| FreeRTOS | N/A | N/A |
| Zephyr | ✓ | N/A |
| Embedded Linux | ✓ | ✓ |
| Yocto | N/A | N/A |
| AUTOSAR | ✓ | N/A |
| STM32 | N/A | N/A |
| Nordic | N/A | ✓ |
| NXP | N/A | N/A |
| FPGA | N/A | N/A |
Pricing comparison: GlobalLogic vs Very
| Criterion | GlobalLogic | Very |
|---|---|---|
| Minimum engagement | Not disclosed | Not disclosed |
| Engagement models | Dedicated team, Time & materials | Fixed project, Time & materials |
| Rate transparency | Not public | Not public |
| Price tier | Mid-market | Mid-market |
Target audience comparison: GlobalLogic vs Very
| Dimension | GlobalLogic | Very |
|---|---|---|
| Best company size | Startup to mid-market | Startup to mid-market |
| Best industries | Automotive, Medical devices, Telecom & broadcast | Industrial IoT, Consumer electronics, Energy & EV charging |
| Best use cases | Delivering connected-vehicle software alongside cloud and app platforms, Staffing an embedded team inside an existing GlobalLogic enterprise contract | Taking a first IoT product from concept to pilot, Building Nerves-based device software on embedded Linux |
| Typical project type | Dedicated team | Fixed project |
GlobalLogic vs Very: pros and cons
| GlobalLogic | |
|---|---|
| + | Can deliver device, cloud and enterprise software under one master agreement |
| + | Elektrobit partnership supports automotive software-defined vehicle work |
| + | Hitachi ownership adds industrial and rail domain contacts |
| - | Owned by Hitachi since 2021, with a planned 2027 merger into Hitachi Digital Services |
| - | Embedded is a small share of a very large digital engineering business |
| - | Large-firm minimums and overhead |
| Very | |
|---|---|
| + | Combines product strategy, design and engineering for teams new to hardware |
| + | Nerves experience is rare and useful for Elixir-based device software |
| + | Delivers the device, app and data platform together |
| - | Firmware is one part of a product agency offer |
| - | US rates without a lower-cost offshore option |
| - | Office location and headcount details vary between sources |
Who should choose GlobalLogic?
A typical fit: delivering connected-vehicle software alongside cloud and app platforms.
Global delivery capacity with embedded work attached to large digital programmes. Minimum engagement is not publicly disclosed. Works best with clients in Automotive, Medical devices, Telecom & broadcast, Industrial IoT.
Who should choose Very?
A typical fit: taking a first IoT product from concept to pilot.
Product-strategy-led IoT development with Nerves and Elixir experience. Minimum engagement is not publicly disclosed. Works best with clients in Industrial IoT, Consumer electronics, Energy & EV charging.
Decision matrix: GlobalLogic vs Very
| Your situation | Recommended choice |
|---|---|
| You need full-ownership delivery on a defined project scope | Very |
| You need a large dedicated team for an ongoing programme | GlobalLogic |
| Your budget is at the lower end | Compare: GlobalLogic (Not disclosed) vs Very (Not disclosed) |
| You need specialist depth in a specific vertical | GlobalLogic |
| You need engineers to extend your own firmware team | GlobalLogic |
| You need consulting before committing to a build | Both may offer discovery engagements |
Use case fit: GlobalLogic vs Very
| Use case | GlobalLogic fit | Very fit | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Delivering connected-vehicle software alongside cloud and app platforms | Strong | Limited | GlobalLogic |
| Staffing an embedded team inside an existing GlobalLogic enterprise contract | Strong | Limited | GlobalLogic |
| Taking a first IoT product from concept to pilot | Limited | Strong | Very |
| Building Nerves-based device software on embedded Linux | Limited | Strong | Very |
| Fixed-price firmware build | Limited | Strong | Very |
| Extending an in-house firmware team | Strong | Strong | Both |
Verdict: GlobalLogic vs Very
GlobalLogic (3.8/5) is the stronger overall choice for most Firmware Development projects. Global delivery capacity with embedded work attached to large digital programmes.
Very (3.8/5) is worth a look if you need building Nerves-based device software on embedded Linux. If your situation matches that, Very is a competitive option.
Related comparisons
GlobalLogic vs Very FAQ
Is GlobalLogic better than Very?
GlobalLogic (3.8/5) scores higher overall, but "better" depends on your use case. GlobalLogic's strongest advantage: can deliver device, cloud and enterprise software under one master agreement. Very's strongest advantage: combines product strategy, design and engineering for teams new to hardware.
How do GlobalLogic and Very differ in pricing?
GlobalLogic uses time & materials, dedicated team pricing. Very uses time & materials, fixed project pricing. Neither firm publishes a full rate card; a discovery call is required for project-specific quotes.
Which is better for enterprise: GlobalLogic or Very?
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 service provider before shortlisting.
What are the main differences between GlobalLogic and Very?
GlobalLogic's primary differentiator is: global delivery capacity with embedded work attached to large digital programmes. Very's primary differentiator is: product-strategy-led IoT development with Nerves and Elixir experience. They also differ in team size (30,000+ vs 51–200), minimum engagement (Not disclosed vs Not disclosed), and primary industries served (Automotive, Medical devices vs Industrial IoT, Consumer electronics).
Verify all details directly with each service provider before making a decision.