LeewayHertz vs Endava: full comparison for 2026
Quick verdict
LeewayHertz (3.6/5) edges ahead of Endava (3.3/5) overall. LeewayHertz is the better choice for buyers who want the stability of a Hackett Group-backed AI advisory vendor over an independent boutique. Endava is the stronger option for enterprises wanting a publicly traded UK-headquartered technology consultancy for AI advisory. The right choice depends on your project size, budget, and required tech stack.
LeewayHertz vs Endava: head-to-head summary
| Criterion | LeewayHertz | Endava |
|---|---|---|
| Founded | 2007 | 2000 |
| HQ | San Francisco, USA | London, UK |
| Team size | 101-200 | 11225 |
| Rating | 3.6 / 5 | 3.3 / 5 |
| Best for | Buyers who want the stability of a Hackett Group-backed AI advisory vendor over an independent boutique | Enterprises wanting a publicly traded UK-headquartered technology consultancy for AI advisory |
| Pricing model | Fixed project, retainer | Retainer, dedicated team, T&M |
| Min. engagement | $30K | $100K |
| Primary tech stack | AutoGen, LangChain, OpenAI | AWS, Azure, Kubernetes |
| Industries served | Fintech, Healthcare, Retail | Fintech, Retail, Telecom |
LeewayHertz vs Endava: overview
LeewayHertz
LeewayHertz was founded in 2007 and is headquartered in San Francisco, with roughly 182-199 employees. The company advises on and builds AI applications, intelligent agents, and multi-agent systems using frameworks including CrewAI and AutoGen Studio. LeewayHertz was acquired by The Hackett Group on September 16, 2024, which buyers should factor into long-term roadmap and pricing expectations.
Endava
Endava was founded in 2000 by John Cotterell in London and is headquartered there, with 11,225 total employees. The company is a publicly traded (NYSE: DAVA) technology services firm offering strategy consulting, data insights, systems architecture, automation, software engineering, cloud computing, and AI technology consulting.
Services and capabilities: LeewayHertz vs Endava
| Capability | LeewayHertz | Endava |
|---|---|---|
| Enterprise automation | ✓ | ✓ |
| Agent orchestration | ✗ | ✗ |
| RAG & knowledge agents | ✗ | ✗ |
| Data & analytics agents | ✗ | ✗ |
| LLM integration | ✓ | ✗ |
| Workflow integration | ✗ | ✓ |
Tech stack comparison: LeewayHertz vs Endava
| Framework / platform | LeewayHertz | Endava |
|---|---|---|
| LangChain | ✓ | N/A |
| LangGraph | N/A | N/A |
| AutoGen | ✓ | N/A |
| LlamaIndex | N/A | N/A |
| OpenAI | ✓ | N/A |
| Anthropic Claude | N/A | N/A |
| Pinecone | N/A | N/A |
| AWS | ✓ | ✓ |
| Azure | N/A | ✓ |
| Kubernetes | N/A | ✓ |
Pricing comparison: LeewayHertz vs Endava
| Criterion | LeewayHertz | Endava |
|---|---|---|
| Minimum engagement | $30K | $100K |
| Engagement models | Fixed project, Retainer, Staff augmentation | Retainer, Dedicated team, T&M |
| Rate transparency | Minimum disclosed | Minimum disclosed |
| Price tier | Accessible | Accessible |
Target audience comparison: LeewayHertz vs Endava
| Dimension | LeewayHertz | Endava |
|---|---|---|
| Best company size | Startup to mid-market | Startup to mid-market |
| Best industries | Fintech, Healthcare, Retail | Fintech, Retail, Telecom |
| Best use cases | Multi-agent system advisory and development, Enterprise AI application strategy | Enterprise AI technology consulting, Large-scale systems architecture advisory |
| Typical project type | Fixed project | Retainer |
LeewayHertz vs Endava: pros and cons
| LeewayHertz | |
|---|---|
| + | Multi-agent framework experience across CrewAI and AutoGen Studio |
| + | Hackett Group backing (since 2024) adds financial stability and cross-sell into enterprise benchmarking advisory |
| + | 17+ years of company history predating its agent-focused pivot |
| - | 2024 acquisition by The Hackett Group changes ownership structure and may shift pricing/positioning over time |
| - | High-volume content marketing makes it easy to over-rank relative to actual differentiated advisory evidence — verify engagement specifics directly rather than relying on brand visibility alone |
| Endava | |
|---|---|
| + | Publicly traded (NYSE: DAVA) with audited financial transparency |
| + | 25+ years of technology consulting history spanning strategy through delivery |
| + | UK headquarters simplifies engagement for European enterprise buyers |
| - | Large-firm structure means less boutique-style senior-partner attention on smaller engagements |
| - | High minimum engagement puts it out of reach for smaller buyers |
Who should choose LeewayHertz?
LeewayHertz is the right choice for buyers who want the stability of a Hackett Group-backed AI advisory vendor over an independent boutique.
Now backed by The Hackett Group's consulting and benchmarking resources following its 2024 acquisition. Minimum engagement starts at $30K. Works best with clients in Fintech, Healthcare, Retail.
Who should choose Endava?
Endava is the right choice for enterprises wanting a publicly traded UK-headquartered technology consultancy for AI advisory.
Publicly traded (NYSE: DAVA) with a UK headquarters, useful for EU/UK-anchored enterprise buyers. Minimum engagement starts at $100K. Works best with clients in Fintech, Retail, Telecom.
Decision matrix: LeewayHertz vs Endava
| Your situation | Recommended choice |
|---|---|
| You need full-ownership delivery on a defined project scope | LeewayHertz |
| You need a large dedicated team for an ongoing programme | Endava |
| Your budget is at the lower end | LeewayHertz |
| You need specialist depth in a specific vertical | LeewayHertz |
| You need staff augmentation or team extension | Neither; consider alternatives that offer staff aug |
| You need consulting before committing to a build | Both may offer discovery engagements |
Use case fit: LeewayHertz vs Endava
| Use case | LeewayHertz fit | Endava fit | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Multi-agent system advisory and development | Strong | Limited | LeewayHertz |
| Enterprise AI application strategy | Strong | Strong | Both equally |
| Enterprise AI technology consulting | Strong | Strong | Both equally |
| Large-scale systems architecture advisory | Limited | Strong | Endava |
| Fixed-price build | Limited | Limited | Both equally |
| Staff augmentation | Limited | Limited | Both equally |
Verdict: LeewayHertz vs Endava
LeewayHertz (3.6/5) is the stronger overall choice for most AI Agent projects. Now backed by The Hackett Group's consulting and benchmarking resources following its 2024 acquisition. It is best for buyers who want the stability of a Hackett Group-backed AI advisory vendor over an independent boutique.
Endava (3.3/5) is the better choice when enterprises wanting a publicly traded UK-headquartered technology consultancy for AI advisory. If your situation matches those criteria, Endava is a competitive option.
Related comparisons
LeewayHertz vs Endava FAQ
Is LeewayHertz better than Endava?
LeewayHertz (3.6/5) scores higher overall, but "better" depends on your use case. LeewayHertz is better for buyers who want the stability of a Hackett Group-backed AI advisory vendor over an independent boutique. Endava is better for enterprises wanting a publicly traded UK-headquartered technology consultancy for AI advisory.
How do LeewayHertz and Endava differ in pricing?
LeewayHertz uses fixed project, retainer pricing with a minimum engagement of $30K. Endava uses retainer, dedicated team, t&m pricing with a minimum engagement of $100K. Neither firm publishes a full rate card; a discovery call is required for project-specific quotes.
Which is better for enterprise: LeewayHertz or Endava?
LeewayHertz is the larger team and typically the better enterprise-scale choice. For very large programmes, verify team size and compliance coverage directly with each consultancy before shortlisting.
What are the main differences between LeewayHertz and Endava?
LeewayHertz's primary differentiator is: now backed by the hackett group's consulting and benchmarking resources following its 2024 acquisition. Endava's primary differentiator is: publicly traded (nyse: dava) with a uk headquarters, useful for eu/uk-anchored enterprise buyers. They also differ in team size (101-200 vs 11225), minimum engagement ($30K vs $100K), and primary industries served (Fintech, Healthcare vs Fintech, Retail).