Very vs Elinext: full comparison for 2026
Quick verdict
Very (3.8/5) edges ahead of Elinext (3.7/5) overall. Very is the better choice for US companies building a first connected product. Elinext is the stronger option for firmware bundled with app and web development. The right choice depends on your project size, budget, and required tech stack.
Very vs Elinext: head-to-head summary
| Criterion | Very | Elinext |
|---|---|---|
| Founded | 2011 | 1997 |
| HQ | USA (fully distributed) | Warsaw, Poland |
| Team size | 51–200 | 501–1,000 |
| Rating | 3.8 / 5 | 3.7 / 5 |
| Primary differentiator | Product-strategy-led IoT development with Nerves and Elixir experience | Generalist developer that can add firmware to a broader software project |
| Pricing model | Time & materials, fixed project | Time & materials, fixed project, dedicated team |
| Min. engagement | Not disclosed | Not disclosed |
| Primary tech stack | C, Elixir, Nerves | C, C++, Embedded Linux |
| Industries served | Industrial IoT, Consumer electronics, Energy & EV charging | Medical devices, Automotive, Industrial IoT |
Very vs Elinext: overview
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.
Elinext
Elinext was founded in 1997 by Dr. Khoa Nguyen and now reports about 700 employees, with delivery centres in Poland, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Vietnam and Uzbekistan. Sources disagree on its headquarters (Warsaw and Syosset, New York both appear); this review uses Warsaw. Embedded software development and IoT are listed services, and one client testimonial describes firmware for transferring data between sensors and a user interface. Most of its business is enterprise, web and mobile development, which makes it a generalist pick for firmware.
Services and capabilities: Very vs Elinext
| Capability | Very | Elinext |
|---|---|---|
| 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: Very vs Elinext
| Framework / platform | Very | Elinext |
|---|---|---|
| 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: Very vs Elinext
| Criterion | Very | Elinext |
|---|---|---|
| Minimum engagement | Not disclosed | Not disclosed |
| Engagement models | Fixed project, Time & materials | Dedicated team, Fixed project, Time & materials |
| Rate transparency | Not public | Not public |
| Price tier | Mid-market | Mid-market |
Target audience comparison: Very vs Elinext
| Dimension | Very | Elinext |
|---|---|---|
| Best company size | Startup to mid-market | Mid-market to enterprise |
| Best industries | Industrial IoT, Consumer electronics, Energy & EV charging | Medical devices, Automotive, Industrial IoT |
| Best use cases | Taking a first IoT product from concept to pilot, Building Nerves-based device software on embedded Linux | Adding sensor firmware to an existing app development contract, Building a medical device companion app with basic firmware support |
| Typical project type | Fixed project | Dedicated team |
Very vs Elinext: pros and cons
| 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 |
| Elinext | |
|---|---|
| + | Can deliver firmware alongside web portals and mobile apps |
| + | Delivery centres in several lower-cost countries |
| + | Nearly three decades in business |
| - | Embedded is a small part of a generalist software business |
| - | Little public detail on firmware case studies or hardware partnerships |
| - | Conflicting public information on headquarters location |
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.
Who should choose Elinext?
A typical fit: adding sensor firmware to an existing app development contract.
Generalist developer that can add firmware to a broader software project. Minimum engagement is not publicly disclosed. Works best with clients in Medical devices, Automotive, Industrial IoT.
Decision matrix: Very vs Elinext
| 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 | Elinext |
| Your budget is at the lower end | Compare: Very (Not disclosed) vs Elinext (Not disclosed) |
| You need specialist depth in a specific vertical | Very |
| You need engineers to extend your own firmware team | Elinext |
| You need consulting before committing to a build | Both may offer discovery engagements |
Use case fit: Very vs Elinext
| Use case | Very fit | Elinext fit | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Taking a first IoT product from concept to pilot | Strong | Limited | Very |
| Building Nerves-based device software on embedded Linux | Strong | Limited | Very |
| Adding sensor firmware to an existing app development contract | Limited | Strong | Elinext |
| Building a medical device companion app with basic firmware support | Limited | Strong | Elinext |
| Fixed-price firmware build | Strong | Strong | Both |
| Extending an in-house firmware team | Strong | Strong | Both |
Verdict: Very vs Elinext
Very (3.8/5) is the stronger overall choice for most Firmware Development projects. Product-strategy-led IoT development with Nerves and Elixir experience.
Elinext (3.7/5) is worth a look if you need building a medical device companion app with basic firmware support. If your situation matches that, Elinext is a competitive option.
Related comparisons
Very vs Elinext FAQ
Is Very better than Elinext?
Very (3.8/5) scores higher overall, but "better" depends on your use case. Very's strongest advantage: combines product strategy, design and engineering for teams new to hardware. Elinext's strongest advantage: can deliver firmware alongside web portals and mobile apps.
How do Very and Elinext differ in pricing?
Very uses time & materials, fixed project pricing. Elinext uses time & materials, fixed project, dedicated team pricing. Neither firm publishes a full rate card; a discovery call is required for project-specific quotes.
Which is better for enterprise: Very or Elinext?
Elinext 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 Very and Elinext?
Very's primary differentiator is: product-strategy-led IoT development with Nerves and Elixir experience. Elinext's primary differentiator is: generalist developer that can add firmware to a broader software project. They also differ in team size (51–200 vs 501–1,000), minimum engagement (Not disclosed vs Not disclosed), and primary industries served (Industrial IoT, Consumer electronics vs Medical devices, Automotive).
Verify all details directly with each service provider before making a decision.