EPAM Systems vs ScienceSoft: full comparison for 2026
Quick verdict
EPAM Systems (4.1/5) edges ahead of ScienceSoft (3.9/5) overall. EPAM Systems is the better choice for enterprises with multi-year engineering budgets. ScienceSoft is the stronger option for tight budgets needing a small first project. The right choice depends on your project size, budget, and required tech stack.
EPAM Systems vs ScienceSoft: head-to-head summary
| Criterion | EPAM Systems | ScienceSoft |
|---|---|---|
| Founded | 1993 | 1989 |
| HQ | Newtown, PA, USA | McKinney, TX, USA |
| Team size | 61,000+ | 750+ |
| Rating | 4.1 / 5 | 3.9 / 5 |
| Primary differentiator | Engineering capacity across Europe, India, and the Americas for long AI programs | Lowest published entry point on this list ($5K Clutch minimum) |
| Pricing model | Time & materials and dedicated teams; rates on request | Fixed-price and time & materials; $50–$99/hr (Clutch band) |
| Min. engagement | Not disclosed | $5,000+ (Clutch) |
| Primary tech stack | Azure OpenAI, AWS Bedrock, Databricks | Salesforce, Microsoft Dynamics 365, SAP |
| Industries served | Financial services, Healthcare, Retail & e-commerce, Media, Energy | Healthcare, Financial services, Retail & e-commerce, Manufacturing |
EPAM Systems vs ScienceSoft: overview
EPAM Systems
EPAM Systems was founded in 1993 and is headquartered in Newtown, Pennsylvania, with over 61,200 employees at the end of 2025. Acquisitions shaped the recent mix: NEORIS (2024) for Latin America and Iberia, and First Derivative (completed December 2024) for financial-services data. Management targets more than $600 million of AI-native revenue in 2026, after reporting over $105 million in Q4 2025. Its AI/Run tooling and Agentic QA product support large engineering programs more than single-workflow pilots.
ScienceSoft
ScienceSoft dates to 1989 and operates as ScienceSoft USA Corporation from McKinney, Texas, with offices in the UAE, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland and over 750 staff. It publishes a lot of content about AI and describes itself as an AI and software development company, covering HIPAA-compliant voice agents, trading platforms, and computer vision. Clutch lists a $5,000 minimum and a $50–$99 hourly band, the lowest entry point on this list. Its breadth means AI integration competes for attention with many other IT services.
Services and capabilities: EPAM Systems vs ScienceSoft
| Capability | EPAM Systems | ScienceSoft |
|---|---|---|
| CRM / ERP integration | ✓ | ✓ |
| LLM API gateway & cost control | ✓ | ✗ |
| Document processing | ✗ | ✓ |
| Conversational AI | ✗ | ✓ |
| Agentic workflows | ✓ | ✗ |
| Fixed-price pilot | ✗ | ✗ |
| Managed services after launch | ✓ | ✓ |
Tech stack comparison: EPAM Systems vs ScienceSoft
| Framework / platform | EPAM Systems | ScienceSoft |
|---|---|---|
| Salesforce | N/A | ✓ |
| SAP | ✓ | ✓ |
| Microsoft Dynamics 365 | N/A | ✓ |
| HubSpot | N/A | N/A |
| Snowflake | ✓ | N/A |
| Databricks | ✓ | N/A |
| BigQuery | N/A | N/A |
| Azure OpenAI | ✓ | ✓ |
| AWS Bedrock | ✓ | ✓ |
| Zendesk | N/A | N/A |
Pricing comparison: EPAM Systems vs ScienceSoft
| Criterion | EPAM Systems | ScienceSoft |
|---|---|---|
| Minimum engagement | Not disclosed | $5,000+ (Clutch) |
| Engagement models | Time & materials, Dedicated team, Managed services | Fixed-scope project, Time & materials, Managed services |
| Rate transparency | Not public | Minimum disclosed |
| Price tier | Mid-market | Accessible |
Target audience comparison: EPAM Systems vs ScienceSoft
| Dimension | EPAM Systems | ScienceSoft |
|---|---|---|
| Best company size | Enterprise | Startup to mid-market |
| Best industries | Financial services, Healthcare, Retail & e-commerce | Healthcare, Financial services, Retail & e-commerce |
| Best use cases | Large data-platform programs that end in AI features, Agent development across several business units | Small first AI projects on a constrained budget, HIPAA-compliant voice agents for clinics |
| Typical project type | Time & materials | Fixed-scope project |
EPAM Systems vs ScienceSoft: pros and cons
| EPAM Systems | |
|---|---|
| + | Engineering depth to staff many workstreams at once. |
| + | Public reporting on AI-native revenue gives a measurable view of the practice. |
| + | First Derivative added capital-markets data skills. |
| + | Agentic QA product addresses testing of AI-generated code. |
| - | Acquisition-driven growth (NEORIS, First Derivative) means teams are still being integrated |
| - | Not built for a small fixed-price pilot |
| - | Management flagged slower organic growth in 2026 guidance |
| ScienceSoft | |
|---|---|
| + | A $5K Clutch minimum makes a first project easy to approve. |
| + | Long operating history since 1989. |
| + | HIPAA experience for healthcare voice and document AI. |
| + | Offers IT support and managed services after delivery. |
| - | Heavy content marketing makes its AI depth hard to judge from the outside |
| - | Generalist IT firm with AI as one practice among dozens |
| - | Headcount ranges differ between Clutch and its own pages |
Who should choose EPAM Systems?
A typical fit: large data-platform programs that end in AI features.
Engineering capacity across Europe, India, and the Americas for long AI programs. Minimum engagement is not publicly disclosed. Works best with clients in Financial services, Healthcare, Retail & e-commerce, Media, Energy.
Who should choose ScienceSoft?
A typical fit: small first AI projects on a constrained budget.
Lowest published entry point on this list ($5K Clutch minimum). Minimum engagement starts at $5,000+ (Clutch). Works best with clients in Healthcare, Financial services, Retail & e-commerce, Manufacturing.
Decision matrix: EPAM Systems vs ScienceSoft
| Your situation | Recommended choice |
|---|---|
| You want a priced pilot before committing to a rollout | Neither advertises one; ask for a scoped pilot quote |
| You need someone to run and monitor the system after launch | Both offer managed services |
| Your budget is at the lower end | Compare: EPAM Systems (Not disclosed) vs ScienceSoft ($5,000+ (Clutch)) |
| The AI has to read and write in your CRM or ERP | Both have CRM or ERP integration work |
| You need multi-step agents acting across systems | EPAM Systems |
| You need a large team for a multi-year program | EPAM Systems |
Use case fit: EPAM Systems vs ScienceSoft
| Use case | EPAM Systems fit | ScienceSoft fit | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Large data-platform programs that end in AI features | Strong | Limited | EPAM Systems |
| Agent development across several business units | Strong | Limited | EPAM Systems |
| Small first AI projects on a constrained budget | Limited | Strong | ScienceSoft |
| HIPAA-compliant voice agents for clinics | Limited | Strong | ScienceSoft |
Verdict: EPAM Systems vs ScienceSoft
EPAM Systems (4.1/5) is the stronger overall choice for most AI Integration Services projects. Engineering capacity across Europe, India, and the Americas for long AI programs.
ScienceSoft (3.9/5) is worth a look if you need HIPAA-compliant voice agents for clinics. If your situation matches that, ScienceSoft is a competitive option.
Related comparisons
EPAM Systems vs ScienceSoft FAQ
Is EPAM Systems better than ScienceSoft?
EPAM Systems (4.1/5) scores higher overall, but "better" depends on your use case. EPAM Systems's strongest advantage: engineering depth to staff many workstreams at once. ScienceSoft's strongest advantage: a $5K Clutch minimum makes a first project easy to approve.
How do EPAM Systems and ScienceSoft differ in pricing?
EPAM Systems's pricing: time & materials and dedicated teams; rates on request. ScienceSoft's pricing: fixed-price and time & materials; $50–$99/hr (Clutch band) with a minimum engagement of $5,000+ (Clutch). Any hourly bands shown come from Clutch, not a published rate card, so a scoping call is still needed for a project quote.
Which is better for enterprise: EPAM Systems or ScienceSoft?
EPAM 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 provider before shortlisting.
What are the main differences between EPAM Systems and ScienceSoft?
EPAM Systems's primary differentiator is: engineering capacity across Europe, India, and the Americas for long AI programs. ScienceSoft's primary differentiator is: lowest published entry point on this list ($5K Clutch minimum). They also differ in team size (61,000+ vs 750+), minimum engagement (Not disclosed vs $5,000+ (Clutch)), and primary industries served (Financial services, Healthcare vs Healthcare, Financial services).
Verify all details directly with each provider before making a decision.