eInfochips vs Luxoft: full comparison for 2026
Quick verdict
eInfochips (4.0/5) edges ahead of Luxoft (3.8/5) overall. eInfochips is the better choice for large device programmes needing many engineers. Luxoft is the stronger option for automotive cockpit and ADAS software programmes. The right choice depends on your project size, budget, and required tech stack.
eInfochips vs Luxoft: head-to-head summary
| Criterion | eInfochips | Luxoft |
|---|---|---|
| Founded | 1994 | 2000 |
| HQ | San Jose, California, USA (engineering HQ: Ahmedabad, India) | Zug, Switzerland |
| Team size | 1,000–5,000 | 15,000+ |
| Rating | 4.0 / 5 | 3.8 / 5 |
| Primary differentiator | Thousands of embedded engineers and broad chip-vendor partnerships, backed by Arrow | Automotive embedded and cockpit software practice inside DXC |
| Pricing model | Time & materials, dedicated team, offshore development centre | Time & materials, dedicated team |
| Min. engagement | Not disclosed | Not disclosed |
| Primary tech stack | C, C++, Embedded Linux | C++, AUTOSAR, QNX |
| Industries served | Medical devices, Industrial IoT, Consumer electronics, Semiconductors, Aerospace & defence | Automotive, Telecom & broadcast |
eInfochips vs Luxoft: overview
eInfochips
Arrow Electronics bought eInfochips in early 2018, when it had about 1,500 employees; it has since grown to well over 3,000 by directory counts. The company dates from 1994, has its main engineering base in Ahmedabad, India, and is headquartered in San Jose. Its services cover silicon design, embedded hardware and firmware, video and camera systems, device security and cloud, and it holds design partnerships with most major chip vendors. For firmware buyers it offers capacity and reference designs; the trade-off is a large-company engagement model.
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.
Services and capabilities: eInfochips vs Luxoft
| Capability | eInfochips | Luxoft |
|---|---|---|
| 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: eInfochips vs Luxoft
| Framework / platform | eInfochips | Luxoft |
|---|---|---|
| FreeRTOS | ✓ | N/A |
| Zephyr | N/A | N/A |
| Embedded Linux | ✓ | ✓ |
| Yocto | ✓ | N/A |
| AUTOSAR | N/A | ✓ |
| STM32 | N/A | N/A |
| Nordic | N/A | N/A |
| NXP | ✓ | N/A |
| FPGA | N/A | N/A |
Pricing comparison: eInfochips vs Luxoft
| Criterion | eInfochips | Luxoft |
|---|---|---|
| Minimum engagement | Not disclosed | Not disclosed |
| Engagement models | Dedicated team, Fixed project, Time & materials | Dedicated team, Time & materials |
| Rate transparency | Not public | Not public |
| Price tier | Mid-market | Mid-market |
Target audience comparison: eInfochips vs Luxoft
| Dimension | eInfochips | Luxoft |
|---|---|---|
| Best company size | Mid-market to enterprise | Startup to mid-market |
| Best industries | Medical devices, Industrial IoT, Consumer electronics | Automotive, Telecom & broadcast |
| Best use cases | Staffing a 30-person firmware and validation team for a medical platform, Building a smart-camera product on a Qualcomm processor | Developing digital cockpit software for a vehicle platform, Building simulation and validation tooling for ADAS |
| Typical project type | Dedicated team | Dedicated team |
eInfochips vs Luxoft: pros and cons
| eInfochips | |
|---|---|
| + | Can staff large teams quickly, including validation and test engineers |
| + | Camera, video and edge AI work on Qualcomm and NXP platforms |
| + | Arrow ownership helps with component supply and reference designs |
| - | Owned by Arrow Electronics since 2018, so ask how silicon recommendations are made |
| - | Large-company processes add overhead for small projects |
| - | Engineer quality can vary between teams in a company this size |
| 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 |
Who should choose eInfochips?
A typical fit: staffing a 30-person firmware and validation team for a medical platform.
Thousands of embedded engineers and broad chip-vendor partnerships, backed by Arrow. Minimum engagement is not publicly disclosed. Works best with clients in Medical devices, Industrial IoT, Consumer electronics, Semiconductors, Aerospace & defence.
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.
Decision matrix: eInfochips vs Luxoft
| Your situation | Recommended choice |
|---|---|
| You need full-ownership delivery on a defined project scope | eInfochips |
| You need a large dedicated team for an ongoing programme | eInfochips |
| Your budget is at the lower end | Compare: eInfochips (Not disclosed) vs Luxoft (Not disclosed) |
| You need specialist depth in a specific vertical | eInfochips |
| You need engineers to extend your own firmware team | eInfochips |
| You need consulting before committing to a build | Both may offer discovery engagements |
Use case fit: eInfochips vs Luxoft
| Use case | eInfochips fit | Luxoft fit | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Staffing a 30-person firmware and validation team for a medical platform | Strong | Limited | eInfochips |
| Building a smart-camera product on a Qualcomm processor | Strong | Limited | eInfochips |
| Developing digital cockpit software for a vehicle platform | Limited | Strong | Luxoft |
| Building simulation and validation tooling for ADAS | Limited | Strong | Luxoft |
| Fixed-price firmware build | Strong | Limited | eInfochips |
| Extending an in-house firmware team | Strong | Strong | Both |
Verdict: eInfochips vs Luxoft
eInfochips (4.0/5) is the stronger overall choice for most Firmware Development projects. Thousands of embedded engineers and broad chip-vendor partnerships, backed by Arrow.
Luxoft (3.8/5) is worth a look if you need building simulation and validation tooling for ADAS. If your situation matches that, Luxoft is a competitive option.
Related comparisons
eInfochips vs Luxoft FAQ
Is eInfochips better than Luxoft?
eInfochips (4.0/5) scores higher overall, but "better" depends on your use case. eInfochips's strongest advantage: can staff large teams quickly, including validation and test engineers. Luxoft's strongest advantage: long track record with automotive OEMs and Tier 1 suppliers.
How do eInfochips and Luxoft differ in pricing?
eInfochips uses time & materials, dedicated team, offshore development centre pricing. Luxoft uses time & materials, dedicated team pricing. Neither firm publishes a full rate card; a discovery call is required for project-specific quotes.
Which is better for enterprise: eInfochips or Luxoft?
eInfochips 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 eInfochips and Luxoft?
eInfochips's primary differentiator is: thousands of embedded engineers and broad chip-vendor partnerships, backed by Arrow. Luxoft's primary differentiator is: automotive embedded and cockpit software practice inside DXC. They also differ in team size (1,000–5,000 vs 15,000+), minimum engagement (Not disclosed vs Not disclosed), and primary industries served (Medical devices, Industrial IoT vs Automotive, Telecom & broadcast).
Verify all details directly with each service provider before making a decision.