# appliedAI vs Pexon Consulting

> Two top-rated AI Consulting agencies in Munich. Side by side: published rates, team size, service and industry coverage, and the curator's assessment of both — pairings are never sold.

Canonical page: https://www.aiagencies.eu/compare/appliedai-vs-pexon-consulting
Generated: 2026-09-20 · Curated by Gabor Kiss · No paid placements — inclusion, score, and rank are never sold.

## Facts
| | appliedAI | Pexon Consulting |
|---|---|---|
| Editorial score | 64.3/100 | 70.8/100 |
| Hourly rate | not published | €130-175/hr (directory-listed) |
| Team size | — | 50-249 |
| Location | Munich, Germany | Munich, Germany |
| Founded | — | 2019 |
| Last reviewed | 2026-08-04 | 2026-09-20 |
| Services | AI Consulting, AI Development, AI Agents, Generative AI | AI Consulting, AI Development, AI Automation |
| Industries | Manufacturing, Healthcare | Healthcare, Manufacturing, Public Sector |

## Our take on appliedAI
Reviewed 2026-08-04 by Gabor Kiss against published evidence.

The Maschinenfabrik Reinhausen build is the one to read: a large language model on a skills-based architecture over a RAG knowledge base, in production, publishing roughly 45x faster Q&A, 1500x on automated extraction and 90% accuracy on base-analysis extraction.

The published client list runs to Roche, Linde, Nokia, Vonovia and Giesecke+Devrient, and the G+D write-up tracks a named enterprise from "experimenting" to "practising" over two years rather than claiming a single win.

Much of the reference library is use-case pages—defect detection, dynamic pricing, anomaly detection—that describe capability rather than a named engagement, so the depth is uneven across it.

The weaker fit is a small team wanting a quick build: the offering is shaped around enterprise programs, maturity assessment and EU AI Act governance.

### Key strengths
- One of the few listed agencies publishing hard speedup and accuracy figures from a production system
- AI Act and governance work is a stated practice line, not a blog topic
- An agent program with a published three-month path to a production-ready agent

### Good to know
- Several reference pages describe use cases rather than named client engagements—ask which are live deployments
- No published rates, headcount or founding year; budget for enterprise procurement

## Our take on Pexon Consulting
Reviewed 2026-09-20 by Gabor Kiss against published evidence.

Four named clients carry AI systems the write-ups describe as running rather than piloted: at Deutz, a private retrieval platform inside the client's own Azure tenant reached more than 5,000 users and took freight-invoice checking from three days per batch to eight minutes, about €240,000 a year; at Klinikum Landsberg am Lech, an Azure OpenAI speech-documentation system live since March 2025 had transcribed over 1,300 consultations and cut documentation effort by more than 90 percent; at Liebherr, an internal assistant reads a user's own mail and files under existing Entra permissions for about €0.38 per user per month; and at Tracify, a company brain routes Claude through AWS Bedrock inside an EU boundary.

The AI work is 24 of 89 published case studies—the rest is Azure, Kubernetes and DevOps delivery—and the roughly 80 staff sit in Berlin, Grünwald, Munich and Cluj-Napoca, so settle which office staffs your engagement before scoping.

Pexon publishes no hourly rate itself; the €130–175/h shown here comes from a third-party directory listing, while the firm's own published figures are project-shaped—€80,000 to €150,000 for a platform rollout over three to six months, managed operation from €4,000 a month.

The weaker fit is a buyer wanting a bespoke model trained by a specialist ML team—the documented pattern is retrieval, agents and document intelligence built on Azure OpenAI or AWS Bedrock inside the client's own tenant.

### Key strengths
- The Deutz write-up names the alternatives it rejected and why—a public LLM API instead of the client's own tenant, filtering in the interface instead of permission checks inside the retrieval step
- Client executives are quoted by name: Maik Tomuschat and Dr. Alexander Schnelke at Klinikum Landsberg am Lech, so there are people on the client side to ask for
- Microsoft Solutions Partner, AWS Advanced Tier and Google Cloud Partner, ISO 27001 stated, and each case study lists industry, stack, project duration and status

### Good to know
- The site claims 400-plus projects and 100-plus customers against 89 published case studies—ask for the list behind the aggregate if breadth is what you are buying
- Visible leadership is five people, four in business roles beside one Head of Azure—ask which named engineers would build, and whether they sit in Germany or Cluj-Napoca
- Dozens of near-identical city landing pages sit beside the case studies—judge depth from the case studies, which carry stacks and numbers, not from the location pages

## Which to choose
Choose appliedAI for:
- closer collaboration at a smaller team scale
- broader service offering — also covers AI Agents and Generative AI

Choose Pexon Consulting for:
- larger team capacity for multi-stream or enterprise-scale programs
- disclosed specialization in Public Sector
- broader service offering — also covers AI Automation
- a higher overall editorial score

## Questions buyers ask

### Which has more Manufacturing experience, appliedAI or Pexon Consulting?
Both agencies show documented Manufacturing work. Pexon Consulting has the broader industry stack overall, with disclosed experience in Public Sector beyond their shared focus.

### Which scores higher overall, appliedAI or Pexon Consulting?
Pexon Consulting scores 70.8/100, 6.5 points higher than appliedAI at 64.3/100. See our methodology for how scores are calculated.

### When should I consider both appliedAI and Pexon Consulting?
Consider running parallel discovery briefs with appliedAI and Pexon Consulting if your project spans multiple workstreams, you want competitive proposals to compare scope and approach, or you're undecided between the specialization angles each brings (see the Best for cards above). Most engagements ultimately go with one — but the parallel-brief phase is a low-cost way to validate fit.

---
Source: AIAgencies.eu — the curated register of European AI agencies. Rate provenance: "agency-confirmed" = disclosed via submission or claimed profile; "directory-listed" = Clutch or two agreeing B2B directories (lone unverified sources are never written). Full method: https://www.aiagencies.eu/methodology · Rate index: https://www.aiagencies.eu/rates