Softeq vs Very: full comparison for 2026
Quick verdict
Softeq (4.1/5) edges ahead of Very (3.8/5) overall. Softeq is the better choice for storage and memory firmware, US-contracted IoT builds. 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.
Softeq vs Very: head-to-head summary
| Criterion | Softeq | Very |
|---|---|---|
| Founded | 1997 | 2011 |
| HQ | Houston, Texas, USA | USA (fully distributed) |
| Team size | 201–500 | 51–200 |
| Rating | 4.1 / 5 | 3.8 / 5 |
| Primary differentiator | Deep NAND, SSD and storage-controller firmware experience alongside full IoT product teams | Product-strategy-led IoT development with Nerves and Elixir experience |
| Pricing model | Time & materials, fixed project, dedicated team | Time & materials, fixed project |
| Min. engagement | Not disclosed | Not disclosed |
| Primary tech stack | C, C++, Embedded Linux | C, Elixir, Nerves |
| Industries served | Semiconductors, Consumer electronics, Industrial IoT, Medical devices | Industrial IoT, Consumer electronics, Energy & EV charging |
Softeq vs Very: overview
Softeq
Chris Howard founded Softeq in Houston in 1997, and the company now employs several hundred people across the US and Europe, with directory estimates between 250 and 500. Its embedded department did years of low-level firmware work for SK Hynix, and current job postings still mention NAND flash controllers, SSDs and eMMC devices. Alongside that, Softeq builds IoT hardware, mobile apps and web platforms, and runs a venture fund for hardware startups. The firmware team is one of several business lines, which suits buyers who want firmware and apps from the same US contract.
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: Softeq vs Very
| Capability | Softeq | 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: Softeq vs Very
| Framework / platform | Softeq | Very |
|---|---|---|
| FreeRTOS | ✓ | N/A |
| Zephyr | N/A | N/A |
| Embedded Linux | ✓ | ✓ |
| Yocto | N/A | N/A |
| AUTOSAR | N/A | N/A |
| STM32 | N/A | N/A |
| Nordic | N/A | ✓ |
| NXP | N/A | N/A |
| FPGA | N/A | N/A |
Pricing comparison: Softeq vs Very
| Criterion | Softeq | Very |
|---|---|---|
| Minimum engagement | Not disclosed | Not disclosed |
| Engagement models | Dedicated team, Fixed project, Time & materials | Fixed project, Time & materials |
| Rate transparency | Not public | Not public |
| Price tier | Mid-market | Mid-market |
Target audience comparison: Softeq vs Very
| Dimension | Softeq | Very |
|---|---|---|
| Best company size | Startup to mid-market | Startup to mid-market |
| Best industries | Semiconductors, Consumer electronics, Industrial IoT | Industrial IoT, Consumer electronics, Energy & EV charging |
| Best use cases | Developing flash-management firmware for an SSD controller, Building a connected consumer device with firmware, mobile app and cloud | Taking a first IoT product from concept to pilot, Building Nerves-based device software on embedded Linux |
| Typical project type | Dedicated team | Fixed project |
Softeq vs Very: pros and cons
| Softeq | |
|---|---|
| + | Rare storage-controller and flash-management firmware experience |
| + | US company with European delivery centres helps balance cost and contract location |
| + | Can deliver hardware, firmware, cloud and apps for a complete IoT product |
| - | Firmware is one of several business lines, so confirm who on the team is a dedicated embedded engineer |
| - | Much of the embedded team historically sat in Belarus; check current delivery locations |
| - | Less suited to tiny bare-metal jobs than to larger programmes |
| 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 Softeq?
A typical fit: developing flash-management firmware for an SSD controller.
Deep NAND, SSD and storage-controller firmware experience alongside full IoT product teams. Minimum engagement is not publicly disclosed. Works best with clients in Semiconductors, Consumer electronics, Industrial IoT, Medical devices.
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: Softeq vs Very
| Your situation | Recommended choice |
|---|---|
| You need full-ownership delivery on a defined project scope | Softeq |
| You need a large dedicated team for an ongoing programme | Softeq |
| Your budget is at the lower end | Compare: Softeq (Not disclosed) vs Very (Not disclosed) |
| You need specialist depth in a specific vertical | Softeq |
| You need engineers to extend your own firmware team | Softeq |
| You need consulting before committing to a build | Both may offer discovery engagements |
Use case fit: Softeq vs Very
| Use case | Softeq fit | Very fit | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Developing flash-management firmware for an SSD controller | Strong | Limited | Softeq |
| Building a connected consumer device with firmware, mobile app and cloud | Strong | Limited | Softeq |
| 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 | Strong | Strong | Both |
| Extending an in-house firmware team | Strong | Strong | Both |
Verdict: Softeq vs Very
Softeq (4.1/5) is the stronger overall choice for most Firmware Development projects. Deep NAND, SSD and storage-controller firmware experience alongside full IoT product teams.
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
Softeq vs Very FAQ
Is Softeq better than Very?
Softeq (4.1/5) scores higher overall, but "better" depends on your use case. Softeq's strongest advantage: rare storage-controller and flash-management firmware experience. Very's strongest advantage: combines product strategy, design and engineering for teams new to hardware.
How do Softeq and Very differ in pricing?
Softeq uses time & materials, fixed project, 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: Softeq or Very?
Softeq 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 Softeq and Very?
Softeq's primary differentiator is: deep NAND, SSD and storage-controller firmware experience alongside full IoT product teams. Very's primary differentiator is: product-strategy-led IoT development with Nerves and Elixir experience. They also differ in team size (201–500 vs 51–200), minimum engagement (Not disclosed vs Not disclosed), and primary industries served (Semiconductors, Consumer electronics vs Industrial IoT, Consumer electronics).
Verify all details directly with each service provider before making a decision.