An honest comparison
The rate card is the least interesting difference.
If you are evaluating an Indian IT major for AI and data work, how the engagement is staffed and billed will shape the result more than any hourly number. Here is what each model is, what each is genuinely good at, and the limits of both.
The Frame
Large managed-services organisations with global delivery footprints, deep vertical practices and established master agreements. Teams are staffed from a pyramid: senior architects shape the programme, and a much larger bench of junior engineers delivers it. Commercially the model is built on time and materials, so the engagement's size and length are what get billed.
One compact pod of senior engineers owns an engagement from first model to monitored production system, with no hand-offs to juniors. Scoped to a single business metric, priced against that outcome and its milestones rather than open-ended hours. The system, its evaluation harness and its documentation are handed over for your own team to run and extend.
Two firms can quote the same rate and deliver entirely different things.One sells a team's capacity. The other is accountable for a number once the model is in production.
Time to production
There is no figure opposite ours. Programme lengths vary far too much to state as fact, and inventing one would fail the same test that kept every other statistic off this page.
Side-by-side
Honest in both directions
Multi-country rollouts, follow-the-sun coverage and the headcount to staff several workstreams at once. If your programme genuinely needs that, it is not something a small pod can fake.
Master agreements, security reviews and vendor onboarding are frequently already done. That removes months of friction a new supplier has to spend.
Infrastructure, application maintenance, ERP and BPO under one contract. When the AI work is one thread inside a much larger transformation, one accountable vendor has real value.
The seniority that wins the deal is not always the seniority that delivers it. Worth asking, in writing, who is actually on your engagement and for what share of their week.
Time and materials bills the team you rented, whether or not the metric moved. Length is revenue, so nothing in the commercial model rewards finishing early.
Many engagements are designed to continue rather than to end. If the goal is for your own team to own the system, that has to be contracted for deliberately.
Small pods of senior engineers. The people in the scoping conversation are the people who build and operate the system.
Every engagement is scoped to a single business metric it is accountable for moving, and priced against that outcome rather than open-ended hours.
You get the running system, the evaluation and monitoring harness that proves it still works, and the documentation your team needs to extend it without us.
If your programme needs teams across twenty countries and languages, or several parallel workstreams staffed at once, Welzin is the wrong shape for it.
We do not take on ERP rollouts, application maintenance or BPO. If the value of a vendor to you is that they cover all of it, that is a real argument against us.
No existing master agreement, no decades-long panel relationship. Vendor onboarding starts from scratch, and for some risk teams that is a genuine cost.
Keep comparing
A direct conversation about the problem, the metric, and whether we are the right shape for it. If another option on this page fits you better, we will say so.
Talk to us
