Cambridge Consultants vs Orthogonal: full comparison for 2026
Quick verdict
Cambridge Consultants (4.4/5) edges ahead of Orthogonal (4.2/5) overall. Cambridge Consultants is the better choice for novel technology with high technical risk. Orthogonal is the stronger option for SaMD and device companion apps. The right choice depends on your project size, budget, and required tech stack.
Cambridge Consultants vs Orthogonal: head-to-head summary
| Criterion | Cambridge Consultants | Orthogonal |
|---|---|---|
| Founded | 1960 | 1998 |
| HQ | Cambridge, UK (part of Capgemini) | Chicago, IL, USA |
| Team size | 900+ | 11–60 |
| Rating | 4.4 / 5 | 4.2 / 5 |
| Primary differentiator | Physicists, chemists and engineers working in one building on problems no off-the-shelf design can solve | Agile delivery adapted to FDA-regulated software, focused on the app and cloud side of connected devices |
| Pricing model | Time and materials, phased fixed project | Time and materials, dedicated team |
| Min. engagement | Not disclosed | Not disclosed |
| Primary tech stack | Optics & photonics, RF, Embedded C/C++ | iOS, Android, Cloud (AWS/Azure) |
| Industries served | Diagnostics & lab devices, Surgical & robotics, Drug delivery, Digital health | Digital health, Wearables & remote monitoring, Diagnostics & lab devices |
Cambridge Consultants vs Orthogonal: overview
Cambridge Consultants
Cambridge Consultants has done contract research and product development from Cambridge, UK, since 1960. It became part of Capgemini through the 2020 acquisition of Altran and now sits within Capgemini Invent, with a headcount of about 900 to 1,000. Medical and life sciences is one of its main sectors, and its public work includes the optics behind Ellume's FDA-authorized COVID-19 home test. Projects tend to involve new sensing, surgical robotics, drug delivery or diagnostics technology rather than incremental redesigns.
Orthogonal
Orthogonal is a Chicago software company founded in 1998 and led by founder and CEO Bernhard Kappe, with its office in the Merchandise Mart. It builds Software as a Medical Device (SaMD), digital therapeutics and the mobile and cloud software that connects to medical devices, working with venture-backed startups as well as established medtech and pharma companies. Directory listings describe ISO 13485 and HIPAA compliance and Class I–III experience. Team size estimates vary widely, from about 11 to 60 people.
Services and capabilities: Cambridge Consultants vs Orthogonal
| Capability | Cambridge Consultants | Orthogonal |
|---|---|---|
| Electronics & PCB design | ✓ | ✗ |
| Firmware & embedded software | ✓ | ✗ |
| SaMD & companion apps | ✗ | ✓ |
| Connected devices & IoT | ✗ | ✓ |
| Industrial design & human factors | ✓ | ✗ |
| Mechanical engineering | ✓ | ✗ |
| Device cybersecurity | ✗ | ✓ |
| Regulatory & QMS support | ✓ | ✓ |
| Manufacturing & scale-up | ✗ | ✗ |
Tech stack comparison: Cambridge Consultants vs Orthogonal
| Framework / platform | Cambridge Consultants | Orthogonal |
|---|---|---|
| Embedded C/C++ | ✓ | N/A |
| Embedded Linux | N/A | N/A |
| RTOS | N/A | N/A |
| BLE | N/A | ✓ |
| Cloud (AWS/Azure) | N/A | ✓ |
| IEC 62304 | N/A | ✓ |
| ISO 14971 | N/A | ✓ |
| ISO 13485 QMS | ✓ | N/A |
| Qt | N/A | N/A |
Pricing comparison: Cambridge Consultants vs Orthogonal
| Criterion | Cambridge Consultants | Orthogonal |
|---|---|---|
| Minimum engagement | Not disclosed | Not disclosed |
| Engagement models | Consulting, Fixed project, Time & materials | Dedicated team, Time & materials |
| Rate transparency | Not public | Not public |
| Price tier | Mid-market | Mid-market |
Target audience comparison: Cambridge Consultants vs Orthogonal
| Dimension | Cambridge Consultants | Orthogonal |
|---|---|---|
| Best company size | Startup to mid-market | Startup to mid-market |
| Best industries | Diagnostics & lab devices, Surgical & robotics, Drug delivery | Digital health, Wearables & remote monitoring, Diagnostics & lab devices |
| Best use cases | Feasibility of a new sensing method for a point-of-care diagnostic, Early-stage surgical robotics architecture | Building a mobile app that controls a Class II device, Developing a digital therapeutic for FDA clearance |
| Typical project type | Consulting | Dedicated team |
Cambridge Consultants vs Orthogonal: pros and cons
| Cambridge Consultants | |
|---|---|
| + | Rare breadth of science and engineering disciplines for early, risky technology work |
| + | Public medtech credits such as the Ellume home-test optics |
| + | Backing of Capgemini gives access to digital and manufacturing partners for later phases |
| + | Strong at feasibility studies that tell you whether an idea can work before you fund a full program |
| - | Owned by Capgemini since 2020, so pricing and processes follow a large-group model |
| - | Among the most expensive options on this list; small startups often find the minimum budget too high |
| - | Best at invention and early development; routine sustaining engineering is not where it adds most value |
| Orthogonal | |
|---|---|
| + | Focused on regulated medical software for more than a decade |
| + | Publishes practical guidance on agile methods under FDA rules, a sign of real process experience |
| + | Strong on mobile apps that talk to devices over BLE |
| + | Small enough for direct access to senior people |
| - | No hardware or firmware design |
| - | Small team limits how many parallel workstreams it can staff |
| - | Team size data is inconsistent across sources |
Who should choose Cambridge Consultants?
A typical fit: feasibility of a new sensing method for a point-of-care diagnostic.
Physicists, chemists and engineers working in one building on problems no off-the-shelf design can solve. Minimum engagement is not publicly disclosed. Works best with clients in Diagnostics & lab devices, Surgical & robotics, Drug delivery, Digital health.
Who should choose Orthogonal?
A typical fit: building a mobile app that controls a Class II device.
Agile delivery adapted to FDA-regulated software, focused on the app and cloud side of connected devices. Minimum engagement is not publicly disclosed. Works best with clients in Digital health, Wearables & remote monitoring, Diagnostics & lab devices.
Decision matrix: Cambridge Consultants vs Orthogonal
| Your situation | Recommended choice |
|---|---|
| You need full-ownership delivery on a defined project scope | Cambridge Consultants |
| You need a large dedicated team for an ongoing programme | Orthogonal |
| Your budget is at the lower end | Compare: Cambridge Consultants (Not disclosed) vs Orthogonal (Not disclosed) |
| You need specialist depth in a specific vertical | Cambridge Consultants |
| 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: Cambridge Consultants vs Orthogonal
| Use case | Cambridge Consultants fit | Orthogonal fit | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Feasibility of a new sensing method for a point-of-care diagnostic | Strong | Limited | Cambridge Consultants |
| Early-stage surgical robotics architecture | Strong | Limited | Cambridge Consultants |
| Building a mobile app that controls a Class II device | Limited | Strong | Orthogonal |
| Developing a digital therapeutic for FDA clearance | Limited | Strong | Orthogonal |
Verdict: Cambridge Consultants vs Orthogonal
Cambridge Consultants (4.4/5) is the stronger overall choice for most Medical Device Development projects. Physicists, chemists and engineers working in one building on problems no off-the-shelf design can solve.
Orthogonal (4.2/5) is worth a look if you need developing a digital therapeutic for FDA clearance. If your situation matches that, Orthogonal is a competitive option.
Related comparisons
Cambridge Consultants vs Orthogonal FAQ
Is Cambridge Consultants better than Orthogonal?
Cambridge Consultants (4.4/5) scores higher overall, but "better" depends on your use case. Cambridge Consultants's strongest advantage: rare breadth of science and engineering disciplines for early, risky technology work. Orthogonal's strongest advantage: focused on regulated medical software for more than a decade.
How do Cambridge Consultants and Orthogonal differ in pricing?
Cambridge Consultants uses time and materials, phased fixed project pricing. Orthogonal uses time and materials, dedicated team pricing. Neither firm publishes a full rate card; a discovery call is required for project-specific quotes.
Which is better for enterprise: Cambridge Consultants or Orthogonal?
Orthogonal 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 Cambridge Consultants and Orthogonal?
Cambridge Consultants's primary differentiator is: Physicists, chemists and engineers working in one building on problems no off-the-shelf design can solve. Orthogonal's primary differentiator is: agile delivery adapted to FDA-regulated software, focused on the app and cloud side of connected devices. They also differ in team size (900+ vs 11–60), minimum engagement (Not disclosed vs Not disclosed), and primary industries served (Diagnostics & lab devices, Surgical & robotics vs Digital health, Wearables & remote monitoring).
Verify all details directly with each company before making a decision.