rinf.tech vs Very: full comparison for 2026
Quick verdict
rinf.tech (3.9/5) edges ahead of Very (3.8/5) overall. rinf.tech is the better choice for EU buyers wanting nearshore embedded capacity. 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.
rinf.tech vs Very: head-to-head summary
| Criterion | rinf.tech | Very |
|---|---|---|
| Founded | 2006 | 2011 |
| HQ | Bucharest, Romania | USA (fully distributed) |
| Team size | 201–500 | 51–200 |
| Rating | 3.9 / 5 | 3.8 / 5 |
| Primary differentiator | EU-based embedded and automotive engineering with multicore and NPU firmware experience | 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, Semiconductors, Telecom & broadcast, Industrial IoT | Industrial IoT, Consumer electronics, Energy & EV charging |
rinf.tech vs Very: overview
rinf.tech
rinf.tech was founded in Bucharest in 2006 and describes itself as a 600-plus person organisation, with delivery centres in Bucharest, Timișoara, Kyiv and Sofia and offices in Germany, France and the US; a delivery office in India opened in 2025. R&D and embedded systems is one of several technical divisions, alongside enterprise applications, robotics and automotive. Job listings point to firmware in multicore environments and NPU accelerator work. For EU buyers it offers nearshore embedded capacity under EU contracts.
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: rinf.tech vs Very
| Capability | rinf.tech | 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: rinf.tech vs Very
| Framework / platform | rinf.tech | Very |
|---|---|---|
| FreeRTOS | ✓ | 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: rinf.tech vs Very
| Criterion | rinf.tech | 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: rinf.tech vs Very
| Dimension | rinf.tech | Very |
|---|---|---|
| Best company size | Startup to mid-market | Startup to mid-market |
| Best industries | Automotive, Semiconductors, Telecom & broadcast | Industrial IoT, Consumer electronics, Energy & EV charging |
| Best use cases | Adding embedded engineers to a European semiconductor team, Developing firmware for an automotive domain controller | Taking a first IoT product from concept to pilot, Building Nerves-based device software on embedded Linux |
| Typical project type | Dedicated team | Fixed project |
rinf.tech vs Very: pros and cons
| rinf.tech | |
|---|---|
| + | EU entity and Romanian delivery suit buyers with data or contract residency requirements |
| + | Embedded work spans multicore firmware and AI accelerators |
| + | Rates below Western European equivalents |
| - | Embedded is one division of a broader IT services company |
| - | Fewer public firmware case studies than the specialists on this list |
| - | No hardware design |
| 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 rinf.tech?
A typical fit: adding embedded engineers to a European semiconductor team.
EU-based embedded and automotive engineering with multicore and NPU firmware experience. Minimum engagement is not publicly disclosed. Works best with clients in Automotive, Semiconductors, 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: rinf.tech 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 | rinf.tech |
| Your budget is at the lower end | Compare: rinf.tech (Not disclosed) vs Very (Not disclosed) |
| You need specialist depth in a specific vertical | rinf.tech |
| You need engineers to extend your own firmware team | rinf.tech |
| You need consulting before committing to a build | Both may offer discovery engagements |
Use case fit: rinf.tech vs Very
| Use case | rinf.tech fit | Very fit | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adding embedded engineers to a European semiconductor team | Strong | Limited | rinf.tech |
| Developing firmware for an automotive domain controller | Strong | Limited | rinf.tech |
| 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: rinf.tech vs Very
rinf.tech (3.9/5) is the stronger overall choice for most Firmware Development projects. EU-based embedded and automotive engineering with multicore and NPU firmware experience.
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
rinf.tech vs Very FAQ
Is rinf.tech better than Very?
rinf.tech (3.9/5) scores higher overall, but "better" depends on your use case. rinf.tech's strongest advantage: EU entity and Romanian delivery suit buyers with data or contract residency requirements. Very's strongest advantage: combines product strategy, design and engineering for teams new to hardware.
How do rinf.tech and Very differ in pricing?
rinf.tech 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: rinf.tech or Very?
rinf.tech 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 rinf.tech and Very?
rinf.tech's primary differentiator is: EU-based embedded and automotive engineering with multicore and NPU firmware experience. 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 (Automotive, Semiconductors vs Industrial IoT, Consumer electronics).
Verify all details directly with each service provider before making a decision.