Persistent Systems vs Endava: full comparison for 2026
Quick verdict
Persistent Systems (3.4/5) edges ahead of Endava (3.3/5) overall. Persistent Systems is the better choice for enterprises wanting a publicly-traded, audited partner at scale. Endava is the stronger option for enterprises wanting a publicly-traded UK consultancy for AI advisory. The right choice depends on your project size, budget, and required tech stack.
Persistent Systems vs Endava: head-to-head summary
| Criterion | Persistent Systems | Endava |
|---|---|---|
| Founded | 1990 | 2000 |
| HQ | Pune, India | London, UK |
| Team size | 20000+ | 11225 |
| Rating | 3.4 / 5 | 3.3 / 5 |
| Primary differentiator | Publicly traded (BSE/NSE) with 24,000+ employees and 35 years of digital engineering history | Publicly traded (NYSE: DAVA) with a UK headquarters, useful for EU/UK-anchored enterprise buyers |
| Pricing model | Retainer, dedicated team, T&M | Retainer, dedicated team, T&M |
| Min. engagement | $100K | $100K |
| Primary tech stack | AWS, Azure, GCP | AWS, Azure, Kubernetes |
| Industries served | Healthcare, Fintech, Telecom | Fintech, Retail, Telecom |
Persistent Systems vs Endava: overview
Persistent Systems
Persistent Systems was founded in 1990 by Anand Deshpande and is headquartered in Pune, India, with 24,594 total employees. The company is a publicly traded organization (BSE and NSE) specializing in digital engineering, enterprise modernization, and software product development, leveraging AI, cloud, IoT, and data analytics across healthcare, financial services, and telecommunications.
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: Persistent Systems vs Endava
| Capability | Persistent Systems | Endava |
|---|---|---|
| Enterprise automation | ✓ | ✓ |
| Agent orchestration | ✗ | ✗ |
| RAG & knowledge agents | ✗ | ✗ |
| Data & analytics agents | ✓ | ✗ |
| LLM integration | ✗ | ✗ |
| Workflow integration | ✓ | ✓ |
Tech stack comparison: Persistent Systems vs Endava
| Framework / platform | Persistent Systems | Endava |
|---|---|---|
| LangChain | N/A | N/A |
| LangGraph | N/A | N/A |
| AutoGen | N/A | N/A |
| LlamaIndex | N/A | N/A |
| OpenAI | N/A | N/A |
| Anthropic Claude | N/A | N/A |
| Pinecone | N/A | N/A |
| AWS | ✓ | ✓ |
| Azure | ✓ | ✓ |
| Kubernetes | ✓ | ✓ |
Pricing comparison: Persistent Systems vs Endava
| Criterion | Persistent Systems | Endava |
|---|---|---|
| Minimum engagement | $100K | $100K |
| Engagement models | Retainer, Dedicated team, T&M | Retainer, Dedicated team, T&M |
| Rate transparency | Minimum disclosed | Minimum disclosed |
| Price tier | Accessible | Accessible |
Target audience comparison: Persistent Systems vs Endava
| Dimension | Persistent Systems | Endava |
|---|---|---|
| Best company size | Startup to mid-market | Startup to mid-market |
| Best industries | Healthcare, Fintech, Telecom | Fintech, Retail, Telecom |
| Best use cases | Enterprise digital engineering advisory, Large-scale agent modernization programs | Enterprise AI technology consulting, Large-scale systems architecture advisory |
| Typical project type | Retainer | Retainer |
Persistent Systems vs Endava: pros and cons
| Persistent Systems | |
|---|---|
| + | Public-company financial transparency (BSE/NSE listed) with audited scale |
| + | 35 years of digital engineering history across multiple technology cycles |
| + | Very large bench (24,000+) supports the most complex multi-region programs |
| - | Very large scale means minimal boutique-style senior-partner attention on individual engagements |
| - | High minimum engagement threshold limits accessibility for smaller buyers |
| 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 Persistent Systems?
A typical fit: enterprise digital engineering advisory.
Publicly traded (BSE/NSE) with 24,000+ employees and 35 years of digital engineering history. Minimum engagement starts at $100K. Works best with clients in Healthcare, Fintech, Telecom.
Who should choose Endava?
A typical fit: enterprise AI technology consulting.
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: Persistent Systems vs Endava
| Your situation | Recommended choice |
|---|---|
| You need full-ownership delivery on a defined project scope | Both offer fixed-price models |
| You need a large dedicated team for an ongoing programme | Persistent Systems |
| Your budget is at the lower end | Persistent Systems |
| You need specialist depth in a specific vertical | Persistent Systems |
| 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: Persistent Systems vs Endava
| Use case | Persistent Systems fit | Endava fit | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enterprise digital engineering advisory | Strong | Strong | Both equally |
| Large-scale agent modernization programs | Strong | Strong | Both equally |
| Enterprise AI technology consulting | Strong | Strong | Both equally |
| Large-scale systems architecture advisory | Strong | Strong | Both equally |
| Fixed-price build | Limited | Limited | Both equally |
| Staff augmentation | Limited | Limited | Both equally |
Verdict: Persistent Systems vs Endava
Persistent Systems (3.4/5) is the stronger overall choice for most AI Agent projects. Publicly traded (BSE/NSE) with 24,000+ employees and 35 years of digital engineering history.
Endava (3.3/5) is worth a look if you need large-scale systems architecture advisory. If your situation matches that, Endava is a competitive option.
Related comparisons
Persistent Systems vs Endava FAQ
Is Persistent Systems better than Endava?
Persistent Systems (3.4/5) scores higher overall, but "better" depends on your use case. Persistent Systems's strongest advantage: public-company financial transparency (BSE/NSE listed) with audited scale. Endava's strongest advantage: publicly traded (NYSE: DAVA) with audited financial transparency.
How do Persistent Systems and Endava differ in pricing?
Persistent Systems uses retainer, dedicated team, t&m pricing with a minimum engagement of $100K. 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: Persistent Systems or Endava?
Persistent Systems 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 Persistent Systems and Endava?
Persistent Systems's primary differentiator is: publicly traded (BSE/NSE) with 24,000+ employees and 35 years of digital engineering history. 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 (20000+ vs 11225), minimum engagement ($100K vs $100K), and primary industries served (Healthcare, Fintech vs Fintech, Retail).