Orthogonal vs Phillips-Medisize: full comparison for 2026
Quick verdict
Orthogonal (4.2/5) edges ahead of Phillips-Medisize (3.9/5) overall. Orthogonal is the better choice for SaMD and device companion apps. 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.
Orthogonal vs Phillips-Medisize: head-to-head summary
| Criterion | Orthogonal | Phillips-Medisize |
|---|---|---|
| Founded | 1998 | 1964 |
| HQ | Chicago, IL, USA | Hudson, WI, USA |
| Team size | 11–60 | ~7,000 |
| Rating | 4.2 / 5 | 3.9 / 5 |
| Primary differentiator | Agile delivery adapted to FDA-regulated software, focused on the app and cloud side of connected devices | Design, molding and assembly of drug delivery devices under one global quality system |
| Pricing model | Time and materials, dedicated team | Development contract plus manufacturing supply agreement |
| Min. engagement | Not disclosed | Not disclosed |
| Primary tech stack | iOS, Android, Cloud (AWS/Azure) | Injection molding, Automated assembly, BLE |
| Industries served | Digital health, Wearables & remote monitoring, Diagnostics & lab devices | Drug delivery, Diagnostics & lab devices, Surgical & therapeutic devices |
Orthogonal vs Phillips-Medisize: overview
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.
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: Orthogonal vs Phillips-Medisize
| Capability | Orthogonal | 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: Orthogonal vs Phillips-Medisize
| Framework / platform | Orthogonal | Phillips-Medisize |
|---|---|---|
| Embedded C/C++ | N/A | N/A |
| Embedded Linux | N/A | N/A |
| RTOS | N/A | N/A |
| BLE | ✓ | ✓ |
| 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: Orthogonal vs Phillips-Medisize
| Criterion | Orthogonal | Phillips-Medisize |
|---|---|---|
| Minimum engagement | Not disclosed | Not disclosed |
| Engagement models | Dedicated team, Time & materials | Fixed project, Manufacturing contract |
| Rate transparency | Not public | Not public |
| Price tier | Mid-market | Mid-market |
Target audience comparison: Orthogonal vs Phillips-Medisize
| Dimension | Orthogonal | Phillips-Medisize |
|---|---|---|
| Best company size | Startup to mid-market | Startup to mid-market |
| Best industries | Digital health, Wearables & remote monitoring, Diagnostics & lab devices | Drug delivery, Diagnostics & lab devices, Surgical & therapeutic devices |
| Best use cases | Building a mobile app that controls a Class II device, Developing a digital therapeutic for FDA clearance | Autoinjector or pen injector development and production, Inhaler device for a pharma combination product |
| Typical project type | Dedicated team | Fixed project |
Orthogonal vs Phillips-Medisize: pros and cons
| 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 |
| 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 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.
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: Orthogonal vs Phillips-Medisize
| Your situation | Recommended choice |
|---|---|
| You need full-ownership delivery on a defined project scope | Phillips-Medisize |
| You need a large dedicated team for an ongoing programme | Orthogonal |
| Your budget is at the lower end | Compare: Orthogonal (Not disclosed) vs Phillips-Medisize (Not disclosed) |
| You need specialist depth in a specific vertical | Orthogonal |
| 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: Orthogonal vs Phillips-Medisize
| Use case | Orthogonal fit | Phillips-Medisize fit | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Building a mobile app that controls a Class II device | Strong | Limited | Orthogonal |
| Developing a digital therapeutic for FDA clearance | Strong | Limited | Orthogonal |
| Autoinjector or pen injector development and production | Limited | Strong | Phillips-Medisize |
| Inhaler device for a pharma combination product | Limited | Strong | Phillips-Medisize |
Verdict: Orthogonal vs Phillips-Medisize
Orthogonal (4.2/5) is the stronger overall choice for most Medical Device Development projects. Agile delivery adapted to FDA-regulated software, focused on the app and cloud side of connected devices.
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
Orthogonal vs Phillips-Medisize FAQ
Is Orthogonal better than Phillips-Medisize?
Orthogonal (4.2/5) scores higher overall, but "better" depends on your use case. Orthogonal's strongest advantage: focused on regulated medical software for more than a decade. Phillips-Medisize's strongest advantage: very large manufacturing footprint across the US, Europe and Asia.
How do Orthogonal and Phillips-Medisize differ in pricing?
Orthogonal uses time and materials, dedicated team 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: Orthogonal 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 Orthogonal and Phillips-Medisize?
Orthogonal's primary differentiator is: agile delivery adapted to FDA-regulated software, focused on the app and cloud side of connected devices. 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 (11–60 vs ~7,000), minimum engagement (Not disclosed vs Not disclosed), and primary industries served (Digital health, Wearables & remote monitoring vs Drug delivery, Diagnostics & lab devices).
Verify all details directly with each company before making a decision.