Conclusive Engineering vs Very: full comparison for 2026
Quick verdict
Conclusive Engineering (4.7/5) edges ahead of Very (4.2/5) overall. Conclusive Engineering is the better choice for hard real-time Linux and FreeBSD firmware from a senior team. Very is the stronger option for distributed-delivery IoT programs needing firmware plus data and ML. The right choice depends on your project size, budget, and required tech stack.
Conclusive Engineering vs Very: head-to-head summary
| Criterion | Conclusive Engineering | Very |
|---|---|---|
| Founded | 2018 | 2011 |
| HQ | Katowice, Poland (second office in Piaseczno) | Bozeman, Montana, USA (fully distributed team) |
| Team size | 30+ | 51–200 |
| Rating | 4.7 / 5 | 4.2 / 5 |
| Primary differentiator | Founder-led team specializing in low-level debugging and hard real-time optimization rather than general embedded staffing | Fully distributed IoT team combining firmware delivery with machine-learning-driven data solutions |
| Pricing model | Full-service embedded hardware, software, and firmware engagement | IoT product development engagements from concept through deployment |
| Min. engagement | Not published (per company website; independently unverifiable) | Not published |
| Primary tech stack | Linux, FreeBSD, RTOS | Embedded C/C++, IoT connectivity stacks, Machine learning data pipelines |
| Industries served | Industrial automation, Telecommunications, Automotive | Industrial IoT, Consumer IoT, Smart infrastructure |
Conclusive Engineering vs Very: overview
Conclusive Engineering
Conclusive Engineering was founded in 2018 by Jakub Klama and Wojciech Kloska, based in Katowice, Poland, with a second office in Piaseczno near Warsaw. The team of roughly 30 engineers works across Linux, FreeBSD, RTOS, and bare-metal firmware, with particular depth in low-level debugging and hard real-time optimization for systems that cannot tolerate jitter. Because the founders came directly from kernel and driver-level engineering roles rather than management backgrounds, the firm stays hands-on with senior staff through the full engagement instead of handing projects to junior teams after scoping.
Very
Very, formerly known by a different name, was founded in 2011 and is headquartered in Bozeman, Montana, operating as a fully distributed team of 51 to 200 people working from numerous countries rather than from central offices. The firm builds connected ecosystems spanning IoT hardware, firmware, and software infrastructure, plus interface design and machine-learning-driven data solutions built on top of device data. Very has appeared on the Inc. 5000 list of fastest-growing private US companies multiple times, a verifiable third-party growth signal distinct from marketing claims.
Services and capabilities: Conclusive Engineering vs Very
| Capability | Conclusive Engineering | Very |
|---|---|---|
| RTOS firmware development | ✓ | ✓ |
| Bare-metal & driver development | ✓ | ✗ |
| Secure boot / OTA firmware updates | ✗ | ✗ |
| MCU & platform migration | ✗ | ✗ |
| Connectivity & IoT protocols | ✗ | ✓ |
| Functional safety / MISRA compliance | ✗ | ✗ |
| Embedded AI / on-device inference | ✗ | ✓ |
| Firmware GUI development | ✗ | ✗ |
| Staff augmentation | ✗ | ✗ |
Tech stack comparison: Conclusive Engineering vs Very
| Framework / platform | Conclusive Engineering | Very |
|---|---|---|
| FreeRTOS | N/A | N/A |
| Zephyr | N/A | N/A |
| STM32 | N/A | N/A |
| ARM Cortex-M | N/A | N/A |
| BLE | N/A | N/A |
| Embedded Linux | N/A | N/A |
| Secure OTA | N/A | N/A |
| PCB | N/A | N/A |
| AWS IoT | N/A | N/A |
| RISC-V | N/A | N/A |
Pricing comparison: Conclusive Engineering vs Very
| Criterion | Conclusive Engineering | Very |
|---|---|---|
| Minimum engagement | Not published (per company website; independently unverifiable) | Not published |
| Engagement models | Full-service product development, Firmware consulting | Fixed project, Dedicated team |
| Rate transparency | Minimum disclosed | Not public |
| Price tier | Mid-market | Mid-market |
Target audience comparison: Conclusive Engineering vs Very
| Dimension | Conclusive Engineering | Very |
|---|---|---|
| Best company size | Startup to mid-market | Startup to mid-market |
| Best industries | Industrial automation, Telecommunications, Automotive | Industrial IoT, Consumer IoT, Smart infrastructure |
| Best use cases | Low-level debugging of an intermittent real-time fault in production firmware, FreeBSD-based networking appliance requiring hard real-time guarantees | IoT program needing firmware paired with machine-learning-driven data analysis, Smart infrastructure product requiring both device firmware and interface design |
| Typical project type | Full-service product development | Fixed project |
Conclusive Engineering vs Very: pros and cons
| Conclusive Engineering | |
|---|---|
| + | Founders bring direct kernel and driver-level experience rather than a management tier sitting over junior engineers |
| + | Covers Linux, FreeBSD, and bare metal, spanning more of the real-time spectrum than Linux-only vendors |
| + | Small team size keeps senior engineers hands-on for the full engagement instead of handing off after scoping |
| - | Roughly 30 engineers caps how many large programs the firm can staff at once |
| - | Founded in 2018, so its public track record is shorter than firms operating since the 1990s or 2000s |
| Very | |
|---|---|
| + | Repeat appearances on the Inc. 5000 list provide a verifiable third-party growth signal |
| + | Fully distributed team structure can draw specialist talent regardless of location |
| + | Combines firmware delivery with data solutions and machine learning on top of device telemetry |
| - | Fully distributed structure means no central office for in-person collaboration during an engagement |
| - | Montana headquarters is a smaller regional base than most firms' US locations on this list |
Who should choose Conclusive Engineering?
A typical fit: low-level debugging of an intermittent real-time fault in production firmware.
Founder-led team specializing in low-level debugging and hard real-time optimization rather than general embedded staffing. Minimum engagement starts at Not published (per company website; independently unverifiable). Works best with clients in Industrial automation, Telecommunications, Automotive.
Who should choose Very?
A typical fit: IoT program needing firmware paired with machine-learning-driven data analysis.
Fully distributed IoT team combining firmware delivery with machine-learning-driven data solutions. Minimum engagement is not publicly disclosed. Works best with clients in Industrial IoT, Consumer IoT, Smart infrastructure.
Decision matrix: Conclusive Engineering 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 | Very |
| Your budget is at the lower end | Compare: Conclusive Engineering (Not published (per company website; independently unverifiable)) vs Very (Not published) |
| You need specialist depth in a specific vertical | Conclusive Engineering |
| You need staff augmentation or team extension | Neither; consider alternatives that offer staff aug |
| You need consulting before committing to a build | Conclusive Engineering |
Use case fit: Conclusive Engineering vs Very
| Use case | Conclusive Engineering fit | Very fit | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Low-level debugging of an intermittent real-time fault in production firmware | Strong | Limited | Conclusive Engineering |
| FreeBSD-based networking appliance requiring hard real-time guarantees | Strong | Limited | Conclusive Engineering |
| IoT program needing firmware paired with machine-learning-driven data analysis | Limited | Strong | Very |
| Smart infrastructure product requiring both device firmware and interface design | Limited | Strong | Very |
| Fixed-price build | Limited | Limited | Both equally |
| Staff augmentation | Limited | Limited | Both equally |
Verdict: Conclusive Engineering vs Very
Conclusive Engineering (4.7/5) is the stronger overall choice for most Firmware Development projects. Founder-led team specializing in low-level debugging and hard real-time optimization rather than general embedded staffing.
Very (4.2/5) is worth a look if you need smart infrastructure product requiring both device firmware and interface design. If your situation matches that, Very is a competitive option.
Related comparisons
Conclusive Engineering vs Very FAQ
Is Conclusive Engineering better than Very?
Conclusive Engineering (4.7/5) scores higher overall, but "better" depends on your use case. Conclusive Engineering's strongest advantage: founders bring direct kernel and driver-level experience rather than a management tier sitting over junior engineers. Very's strongest advantage: repeat appearances on the Inc. 5000 list provide a verifiable third-party growth signal.
How do Conclusive Engineering and Very differ in pricing?
Conclusive Engineering uses full-service embedded hardware, software, and firmware engagement pricing with a minimum engagement of Not published (per company website; independently unverifiable). Very uses iot product development engagements from concept through deployment pricing. Neither firm publishes a full rate card; a discovery call is required for project-specific quotes.
Which is better for enterprise: Conclusive Engineering or Very?
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 company before shortlisting.
What are the main differences between Conclusive Engineering and Very?
Conclusive Engineering's primary differentiator is: founder-led team specializing in low-level debugging and hard real-time optimization rather than general embedded staffing. Very's primary differentiator is: fully distributed IoT team combining firmware delivery with machine-learning-driven data solutions. They also differ in team size (30+ vs 51–200), minimum engagement (Not published (per company website; independently unverifiable) vs Not published), and primary industries served (Industrial automation, Telecommunications vs Industrial IoT, Consumer IoT).
Verify all details directly with each company before making a decision.