Luxoft vs Very: full comparison for 2026
Quick verdict
Luxoft (3.8/5) edges ahead of Very (3.8/5) overall. Luxoft is the better choice for automotive cockpit and ADAS software 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.
Luxoft vs Very: head-to-head summary
| Criterion | Luxoft | Very |
|---|---|---|
| Founded | 2000 | 2011 |
| HQ | Zug, Switzerland | USA (fully distributed) |
| Team size | 15,000+ | 51–200 |
| Rating | 3.8 / 5 | 3.8 / 5 |
| Primary differentiator | Automotive embedded and cockpit software practice inside DXC | 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++, AUTOSAR, QNX | C, Elixir, Nerves |
| Industries served | Automotive, Telecom & broadcast | Industrial IoT, Consumer electronics, Energy & EV charging |
Luxoft vs Very: overview
Luxoft
Luxoft started in Moscow in 2000, is now headquartered in Zug, Switzerland, and has been part of DXC Technology since 2019. Its automotive business, marketed as DXC Luxoft Automotive, works on embedded systems, cockpit and infotainment software, ADAS and simulation, and grew through acquisitions including Objective GmbH in 2018 and CMORE Automotive in 2020. Group headcount estimates sit between about 13,000 and 18,000. Embedded MCU firmware outside automotive is not where it competes.
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: Luxoft vs Very
| Capability | Luxoft | 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: Luxoft vs Very
| Framework / platform | Luxoft | Very |
|---|---|---|
| FreeRTOS | N/A | N/A |
| Zephyr | N/A | 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: Luxoft vs Very
| Criterion | Luxoft | 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: Luxoft vs Very
| Dimension | Luxoft | Very |
|---|---|---|
| Best company size | Startup to mid-market | Startup to mid-market |
| Best industries | Automotive, Telecom & broadcast | Industrial IoT, Consumer electronics, Energy & EV charging |
| Best use cases | Developing digital cockpit software for a vehicle platform, Building simulation and validation tooling for ADAS | Taking a first IoT product from concept to pilot, Building Nerves-based device software on embedded Linux |
| Typical project type | Dedicated team | Fixed project |
Luxoft vs Very: pros and cons
| Luxoft | |
|---|---|
| + | Long track record with automotive OEMs and Tier 1 suppliers |
| + | Acquisitions added German automotive engineering capacity |
| + | Can run large, multi-site programmes |
| - | Owned by DXC since 2019, and its focus outside automotive embedded is limited |
| - | Not a practical choice for small MCU firmware projects |
| - | Delivery footprint changed significantly after 2022; confirm current team locations |
| 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 Luxoft?
A typical fit: developing digital cockpit software for a vehicle platform.
Automotive embedded and cockpit software practice inside DXC. Minimum engagement is not publicly disclosed. Works best with clients in Automotive, Telecom & broadcast.
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: Luxoft 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 | Luxoft |
| Your budget is at the lower end | Compare: Luxoft (Not disclosed) vs Very (Not disclosed) |
| You need specialist depth in a specific vertical | Very |
| You need engineers to extend your own firmware team | Luxoft |
| You need consulting before committing to a build | Both may offer discovery engagements |
Use case fit: Luxoft vs Very
| Use case | Luxoft fit | Very fit | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Developing digital cockpit software for a vehicle platform | Strong | Limited | Luxoft |
| Building simulation and validation tooling for ADAS | Strong | Limited | Luxoft |
| 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: Luxoft vs Very
Luxoft (3.8/5) is the stronger overall choice for most Firmware Development projects. Automotive embedded and cockpit software practice inside DXC.
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
Luxoft vs Very FAQ
Is Luxoft better than Very?
Luxoft (3.8/5) scores higher overall, but "better" depends on your use case. Luxoft's strongest advantage: long track record with automotive OEMs and Tier 1 suppliers. Very's strongest advantage: combines product strategy, design and engineering for teams new to hardware.
How do Luxoft and Very differ in pricing?
Luxoft 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: Luxoft 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 Luxoft and Very?
Luxoft's primary differentiator is: automotive embedded and cockpit software practice inside DXC. Very's primary differentiator is: product-strategy-led IoT development with Nerves and Elixir experience. They also differ in team size (15,000+ vs 51–200), minimum engagement (Not disclosed vs Not disclosed), and primary industries served (Automotive, Telecom & broadcast vs Industrial IoT, Consumer electronics).
Verify all details directly with each service provider before making a decision.