needCode vs Very: full comparison for 2026
Quick verdict
needCode (4.3/5) edges ahead of Very (4.2/5) overall. needCode is the better choice for IoT firmware needing built-in cybersecurity compliance work. 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.
needCode vs Very: head-to-head summary
| Criterion | needCode | Very |
|---|---|---|
| Founded | 2015 | 2011 |
| HQ | Kraków, Poland | Bozeman, Montana, USA (fully distributed team) |
| Team size | 11–50 | 51–200 |
| Rating | 4.3 / 5 | 4.2 / 5 |
| Primary differentiator | Cybersecurity and compliance capability built directly into the embedded engineering practice rather than outsourced | Fully distributed IoT team combining firmware delivery with machine-learning-driven data solutions |
| Pricing model | IoT development and staff augmentation | IoT product development engagements from concept through deployment |
| Min. engagement | Not published (per company website; independently unverifiable) | Not published |
| Primary tech stack | C, C++, Secure OTA update systems | Embedded C/C++, IoT connectivity stacks, Machine learning data pipelines |
| Industries served | Industrial IoT, Consumer IoT | Industrial IoT, Consumer IoT, Smart infrastructure |
needCode vs Very: overview
needCode
needCode was founded in 2015 and is based in Kraków, Poland, with a team in the 11 to 50 employee range. The firm builds its cybersecurity and compliance capability directly into the core embedded engineering practice rather than treating it as an outsourced add-on, covering secure OTA update systems alongside standard IoT firmware development. Automated CI/CD and hardware pool management for testing reduce the manual regression work that smaller firmware shops often still do by hand, and the firm also offers staff augmentation for clients extending an existing embedded team.
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: needCode vs Very
| Capability | needCode | 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: needCode vs Very
| Framework / platform | needCode | 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 |
| PCB | N/A | N/A |
| AWS IoT | N/A | N/A |
| RISC-V | N/A | N/A |
Pricing comparison: needCode vs Very
| Criterion | needCode | Very |
|---|---|---|
| Minimum engagement | Not published (per company website; independently unverifiable) | Not published |
| Engagement models | Fixed project, Staff augmentation | Fixed project, Dedicated team |
| Rate transparency | Minimum disclosed | Not public |
| Price tier | Mid-market | Mid-market |
Target audience comparison: needCode vs Very
| Dimension | needCode | Very |
|---|---|---|
| Best company size | Startup to mid-market | Startup to mid-market |
| Best industries | Industrial IoT, Consumer IoT | Industrial IoT, Consumer IoT, Smart infrastructure |
| Best use cases | IoT product needing a documented cybersecurity compliance process built into firmware, Existing embedded team needing staff augmentation for a security-focused sprint | IoT program needing firmware paired with machine-learning-driven data analysis, Smart infrastructure product requiring both device firmware and interface design |
| Typical project type | Fixed project | Fixed project |
needCode vs Very: pros and cons
| needCode | |
|---|---|
| + | Cybersecurity compliance work is built into the core engineering practice rather than a separate line item |
| + | Automated CI/CD and hardware pool management for testing reduces manual regression work |
| + | Staff augmentation option suits clients needing to extend an existing embedded team |
| - | Team size under 50 limits capacity for very large programs |
| - | Smaller public case-study base than more established firms on this list |
| 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 needCode?
A typical fit: IoT product needing a documented cybersecurity compliance process built into firmware.
Cybersecurity and compliance capability built directly into the embedded engineering practice rather than outsourced. Minimum engagement starts at Not published (per company website; independently unverifiable). Works best with clients in Industrial IoT, Consumer IoT.
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: needCode vs Very
| Your situation | Recommended choice |
|---|---|
| You need full-ownership delivery on a defined project scope | needCode |
| You need a large dedicated team for an ongoing programme | Very |
| Your budget is at the lower end | Compare: needCode (Not published (per company website; independently unverifiable)) vs Very (Not published) |
| You need specialist depth in a specific vertical | Very |
| You need staff augmentation or team extension | needCode |
| You need consulting before committing to a build | Both may offer discovery engagements |
Use case fit: needCode vs Very
| Use case | needCode fit | Very fit | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| IoT product needing a documented cybersecurity compliance process built into firmware | Strong | Strong | Both equally |
| Existing embedded team needing staff augmentation for a security-focused sprint | Strong | Limited | needCode |
| IoT program needing firmware paired with machine-learning-driven data analysis | Strong | Strong | Both equally |
| Smart infrastructure product requiring both device firmware and interface design | Limited | Strong | Very |
| Fixed-price build | Limited | Limited | Both equally |
| Staff augmentation | Strong | Limited | needCode |
Verdict: needCode vs Very
needCode (4.3/5) is the stronger overall choice for most Firmware Development projects. Cybersecurity and compliance capability built directly into the embedded engineering practice rather than outsourced.
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
needCode vs Very FAQ
Is needCode better than Very?
needCode (4.3/5) scores higher overall, but "better" depends on your use case. needCode's strongest advantage: cybersecurity compliance work is built into the core engineering practice rather than a separate line item. Very's strongest advantage: repeat appearances on the Inc. 5000 list provide a verifiable third-party growth signal.
How do needCode and Very differ in pricing?
needCode uses iot development and staff augmentation 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: needCode 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 needCode and Very?
needCode's primary differentiator is: cybersecurity and compliance capability built directly into the embedded engineering practice rather than outsourced. Very's primary differentiator is: fully distributed IoT team combining firmware delivery with machine-learning-driven data solutions. They also differ in team size (11–50 vs 51–200), minimum engagement (Not published (per company website; independently unverifiable) vs Not published), and primary industries served (Industrial IoT, Consumer IoT vs Industrial IoT, Consumer IoT).
Verify all details directly with each company before making a decision.