Cambridge Consultants vs Phillips-Medisize: full comparison for 2026
Quick verdict
Cambridge Consultants (4.4/5) edges ahead of Phillips-Medisize (3.9/5) overall. Cambridge Consultants is the better choice for novel technology with high technical risk. Phillips-Medisize is the stronger option for drug delivery devices needing high-volume production. The right choice depends on your project size, budget, and required tech stack.
Cambridge Consultants vs Phillips-Medisize: head-to-head summary
| Criterion | Cambridge Consultants | Phillips-Medisize |
|---|---|---|
| Founded | 1960 | 1964 |
| HQ | Cambridge, UK (part of Capgemini) | Hudson, WI, USA |
| Team size | 900+ | ~7,000 |
| Rating | 4.4 / 5 | 3.9 / 5 |
| Primary differentiator | Physicists, chemists and engineers working in one building on problems no off-the-shelf design can solve | Design, molding and assembly of drug delivery devices under one global quality system |
| Pricing model | Time and materials, phased fixed project | Development contract plus manufacturing supply agreement |
| Min. engagement | Not disclosed | Not disclosed |
| Primary tech stack | Optics & photonics, RF, Embedded C/C++ | Injection molding, Automated assembly, BLE |
| Industries served | Diagnostics & lab devices, Surgical & robotics, Drug delivery, Digital health | Drug delivery, Diagnostics & lab devices, Surgical & therapeutic devices |
Cambridge Consultants vs Phillips-Medisize: 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.
Phillips-Medisize
Phillips-Medisize is a subsidiary of Molex, itself owned by Koch Industries, and provides outsourced design, development and manufacturing to pharma, diagnostics and medical device companies. It is based in Wisconsin and has about 7,000 employees. Molex's purchase of inhalation specialist Vectura added combination-product expertise, and the combined team includes more than 1,200 engineers and scientists across 30 sites. A $110M manufacturing campus in Katowice, Poland, opened in November 2023.
Services and capabilities: Cambridge Consultants vs Phillips-Medisize
| Capability | Cambridge Consultants | Phillips-Medisize |
|---|---|---|
| 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 Phillips-Medisize
| Framework / platform | Cambridge Consultants | Phillips-Medisize |
|---|---|---|
| Embedded C/C++ | ✓ | N/A |
| Embedded Linux | N/A | N/A |
| RTOS | N/A | N/A |
| BLE | N/A | ✓ |
| Cloud (AWS/Azure) | N/A | N/A |
| IEC 62304 | N/A | N/A |
| ISO 14971 | N/A | N/A |
| ISO 13485 QMS | ✓ | ✓ |
| Qt | N/A | N/A |
Pricing comparison: Cambridge Consultants vs Phillips-Medisize
| Criterion | Cambridge Consultants | Phillips-Medisize |
|---|---|---|
| Minimum engagement | Not disclosed | Not disclosed |
| Engagement models | Consulting, Fixed project, Time & materials | Fixed project, Manufacturing contract |
| Rate transparency | Not public | Not public |
| Price tier | Mid-market | Mid-market |
Target audience comparison: Cambridge Consultants vs Phillips-Medisize
| Dimension | Cambridge Consultants | Phillips-Medisize |
|---|---|---|
| Best company size | Startup to mid-market | Startup to mid-market |
| Best industries | Diagnostics & lab devices, Surgical & robotics, Drug delivery | Drug delivery, Diagnostics & lab devices, Surgical & therapeutic devices |
| Best use cases | Feasibility of a new sensing method for a point-of-care diagnostic, Early-stage surgical robotics architecture | Autoinjector or pen injector development and production, Inhaler device for a pharma combination product |
| Typical project type | Consulting | Fixed project |
Cambridge Consultants vs Phillips-Medisize: 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 |
| Phillips-Medisize | |
|---|---|
| + | Very large manufacturing footprint across the US, Europe and Asia |
| + | Vectura deal added deep inhalation and combination-product skills |
| + | Development and manufacturing under one quality system |
| + | Experience with connected drug delivery |
| - | Owned by Molex and Koch Industries, so it suits large pharma more than small startups |
| - | Development work is usually tied to a manufacturing agreement |
| - | Less suited to software-heavy or early research projects |
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 Phillips-Medisize?
A typical fit: autoinjector or pen injector development and production.
Design, molding and assembly of drug delivery devices under one global quality system. Minimum engagement is not publicly disclosed. Works best with clients in Drug delivery, Diagnostics & lab devices, Surgical & therapeutic devices.
Decision matrix: Cambridge Consultants vs Phillips-Medisize
| 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 | Check each company's engagement model |
| Your budget is at the lower end | Compare: Cambridge Consultants (Not disclosed) vs Phillips-Medisize (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 Phillips-Medisize
| Use case | Cambridge Consultants fit | Phillips-Medisize 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 |
| Autoinjector or pen injector development and production | Limited | Strong | Phillips-Medisize |
| Inhaler device for a pharma combination product | Limited | Strong | Phillips-Medisize |
Verdict: Cambridge Consultants vs Phillips-Medisize
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.
Phillips-Medisize (3.9/5) is worth a look if you need inhaler device for a pharma combination product. If your situation matches that, Phillips-Medisize is a competitive option.
Related comparisons
Cambridge Consultants vs Phillips-Medisize FAQ
Is Cambridge Consultants better than Phillips-Medisize?
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. Phillips-Medisize's strongest advantage: very large manufacturing footprint across the US, Europe and Asia.
How do Cambridge Consultants and Phillips-Medisize differ in pricing?
Cambridge Consultants uses time and materials, phased fixed project pricing. Phillips-Medisize uses development contract plus manufacturing supply agreement 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 Phillips-Medisize?
Phillips-Medisize 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 Phillips-Medisize?
Cambridge Consultants's primary differentiator is: Physicists, chemists and engineers working in one building on problems no off-the-shelf design can solve. Phillips-Medisize's primary differentiator is: Design, molding and assembly of drug delivery devices under one global quality system. They also differ in team size (900+ vs ~7,000), minimum engagement (Not disclosed vs Not disclosed), and primary industries served (Diagnostics & lab devices, Surgical & robotics vs Drug delivery, Diagnostics & lab devices).
Verify all details directly with each company before making a decision.