Very vs ScienceSoft: full comparison for 2026
Quick verdict
Very (3.8/5) edges ahead of ScienceSoft (3.7/5) overall. Very is the better choice for US companies building a first connected product. ScienceSoft is the stronger option for healthcare IoT platforms with light firmware needs. The right choice depends on your project size, budget, and required tech stack.
Very vs ScienceSoft: head-to-head summary
| Criterion | Very | ScienceSoft |
|---|---|---|
| Founded | 2011 | 1989 |
| HQ | USA (fully distributed) | McKinney, Texas, USA |
| Team size | 51–200 | 750+ |
| Rating | 3.8 / 5 | 3.7 / 5 |
| Primary differentiator | Product-strategy-led IoT development with Nerves and Elixir experience | Healthcare IT and IoT platform experience, with security testing in-house |
| Pricing model | Time & materials, fixed project | Fixed project, time & materials |
| Min. engagement | Not disclosed | Not disclosed |
| Primary tech stack | C, Elixir, Nerves | C, C++, FreeRTOS |
| Industries served | Industrial IoT, Consumer electronics, Energy & EV charging | Medical devices, Industrial IoT |
Very vs ScienceSoft: 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.
ScienceSoft
ScienceSoft traces its origins to a cooperative founded in 1989 and is now headquartered in McKinney, Texas, with about 750 staff. It has offered IoT services since 2011, with projects such as the AKLOS Health physiotherapy platform, and lists embedded software among its services. Most of its revenue comes from healthcare IT, finance IT, data analytics and security testing. For firmware buyers it is mainly useful when the device side is small and the larger job is the platform around it.
Services and capabilities: Very vs ScienceSoft
| Capability | Very | ScienceSoft |
|---|---|---|
| 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 ScienceSoft
| Framework / platform | Very | ScienceSoft |
|---|---|---|
| FreeRTOS | N/A | ✓ |
| Zephyr | N/A | N/A |
| Embedded Linux | ✓ | N/A |
| 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 ScienceSoft
| Criterion | Very | ScienceSoft |
|---|---|---|
| Minimum engagement | Not disclosed | Not disclosed |
| Engagement models | Fixed project, Time & materials | Fixed project, Time & materials |
| Rate transparency | Not public | Not public |
| Price tier | Mid-market | Mid-market |
Target audience comparison: Very vs ScienceSoft
| Dimension | Very | ScienceSoft |
|---|---|---|
| Best company size | Startup to mid-market | Startup to mid-market |
| Best industries | Industrial IoT, Consumer electronics, Energy & EV charging | Medical devices, Industrial IoT |
| Best use cases | Taking a first IoT product from concept to pilot, Building Nerves-based device software on embedded Linux | Building a remote patient monitoring platform with BLE device integration, Security testing an IoT product's cloud and mobile components |
| Typical project type | Fixed project | Fixed project |
Very vs ScienceSoft: 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 |
| ScienceSoft | |
|---|---|
| + | Long healthcare IT history useful for connected medical platforms |
| + | In-house security testing team |
| + | Fixed-price proposals available for well-defined scopes |
| - | Firmware is a minor service line, and public embedded case studies are few |
| - | No hardware design |
| - | Better suited to the platform around a device than to the device itself |
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 ScienceSoft?
A typical fit: building a remote patient monitoring platform with BLE device integration.
Healthcare IT and IoT platform experience, with security testing in-house. Minimum engagement is not publicly disclosed. Works best with clients in Medical devices, Industrial IoT.
Decision matrix: Very vs ScienceSoft
| 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 | Check each company's engagement model |
| Your budget is at the lower end | Compare: Very (Not disclosed) vs ScienceSoft (Not disclosed) |
| You need specialist depth in a specific vertical | Very |
| You need engineers to extend your own firmware team | Neither lists a dedicated-team model |
| You need consulting before committing to a build | Both may offer discovery engagements |
Use case fit: Very vs ScienceSoft
| Use case | Very fit | ScienceSoft 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 |
| Building a remote patient monitoring platform with BLE device integration | Limited | Strong | ScienceSoft |
| Security testing an IoT product's cloud and mobile components | Limited | Strong | ScienceSoft |
| Fixed-price firmware build | Strong | Strong | Both |
| Extending an in-house firmware team | Strong | Strong | Both |
Verdict: Very vs ScienceSoft
Very (3.8/5) is the stronger overall choice for most Firmware Development projects. Product-strategy-led IoT development with Nerves and Elixir experience.
ScienceSoft (3.7/5) is worth a look if you need security testing an IoT product's cloud and mobile components. If your situation matches that, ScienceSoft is a competitive option.
Related comparisons
Very vs ScienceSoft FAQ
Is Very better than ScienceSoft?
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. ScienceSoft's strongest advantage: long healthcare IT history useful for connected medical platforms.
How do Very and ScienceSoft differ in pricing?
Very uses time & materials, fixed project pricing. ScienceSoft uses fixed project, time & materials pricing. Neither firm publishes a full rate card; a discovery call is required for project-specific quotes.
Which is better for enterprise: Very or ScienceSoft?
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 Very and ScienceSoft?
Very's primary differentiator is: product-strategy-led IoT development with Nerves and Elixir experience. ScienceSoft's primary differentiator is: healthcare IT and IoT platform experience, with security testing in-house. They also differ in team size (51–200 vs 750+), minimum engagement (Not disclosed vs Not disclosed), and primary industries served (Industrial IoT, Consumer electronics vs Medical devices, Industrial IoT).
Verify all details directly with each service provider before making a decision.