Comparison updated
Side by side
Published data on both agencies. Where one side measurably differs, the dot marks it: the higher score, the lower published rate, the larger team, the more recent review. Which of those is an advantage depends on your brief.
| Attribute | Buildo | xtream |
|---|---|---|
| Editorial score | 55/100 | Higher score: 60/100 |
| Hourly rate | €85-130/hr | Lower published rate: €45-85/hr |
| Team size | 10-49 | 10-49 |
| Location | Milan, Italy | Milan, Italy |
| Founded | 2013 | 2018 |
| Last reviewed | Sep 3, 2026 | Sep 3, 2026 |
What we said about each
Our take on Buildo
The Banksealer study is the one that shows a machine-learning system in production: fraud-ranking algorithms developed with Politecnico di Milano and reimplemented in Scala, running on-premises without an internet connection at 200 transactions per second, with the Kafka, Elasticsearch and Docker choices explained rather than hidden. The other two AI studies are a shipped LLM conversation-intelligence feature for Superlayer, where the prompt-engineering and token-windowing decisions are written…
Reviewed Sep 3, 2026
Read the full assessment →Our take on xtream
Three of the 10 published projects describe machine-learning or optimization systems that reached production with numbers attached: hourly power-load forecasting for an unnamed Italian utility that cut relative error by 24% (residential) and 26% (industrial) and became the utility's official tool, demand forecasting for an unnamed food-and-beverage group, retrained monthly on Azure ML, that reduced planning effort by 25%, and WeRoad's tour planner, where 84% of departures now fall on a date…
Reviewed Sep 3, 2026
Read the full assessment →Best for
Where each agency measurably leads on the published data — team capacity, declared specializations, editorial scoring, and rates where both publish them. Use these to match an agency to your project priorities.
Choose Buildo if you need
- disclosed specialization in Healthcare
- an overall editorial score of 55/100
Choose xtream if you need
- a more cost-effective engagement (~65% lower rate)
- disclosed specialization in E-commerce
- a higher overall editorial score
Strengths and watch-outs
Both upsides and risks, straight from our editorial assessments.
Buildo
Strengths
- All 5 case studies close with a quote from a named client executive (CTO, Head of Data Analytics, CEO, Head of Sales), so references are visible before the first call
- Regulated delivery is documented: the Inpeco study describes safety and cybersecurity risk analysis, requirements tracking and an automated verification suite under medical-device processes
- Published rates of €85–130/h sit inside the €100–200/h EU band for a 2013 firm with ISO 9001 certification and FT 1000 (2023) and Sole 24 Ore Growth Leaders (2022, 2023) listings
Watch-outs
- The Banksealer study gives throughput (200 transactions per second) but no detection outcome—ask what the fraud-catch rate or analyst time saved looked like after go-live
- The AI Engineering service page is an unfilled template at review time—ask for the current AI offer in writing and who on the team would staff it
- The Inpeco study is written in the present tense ('we are developing')—confirm the status of any in-progress engagement offered as a reference
xtream
Strengths
- Published rates of €45–85/h against production forecasting systems with measured error reductions, well under the €100–200/h EU band
- 7 of the 20 named team members carry data-science or AI-engineer titles, led by a founder who is Head of AI
- Engagement terms are written down: a service-oriented iteration model and a product-oriented fixed-scope model, each with its prerequisites, are published on the AI Solutions page
Watch-outs
- The utility and food-and-beverage studies are anonymized—ask for a reference call behind at least one of them before relying on the error-reduction figures
- The portfolio page claims 30-plus projects and 20-plus customers against 10 published—ask for the list behind the number
- The WeRoad system is a mixed-integer-programming optimizer, not a learned model—if your brief is generative AI, ask for an LLM engagement they can show
Service coverage
Both agencies cover the same services — on this axis there is nothing to separate them, so decide on the evidence behind the work rather than its labels.
Industry coverage
Where the two overlap, and where each covers ground the other does not.
Pricing math
What a 12-week engagement at one full-time equivalent (~480 hours) costs at each agency’s published rate. An arithmetic projection, not a quote — real scopes move with seniority mix and team shape.
Buildo
Rate: €85-130/hr
€40,800–€62,400
xtream
Rate: €45-85/hr
€21,600–€40,800
At this scope the published midpoints are about €20,400 apart, with xtream lower. Buildo publishes Healthcare work that xtream does not — that is the one difference on this page that bears on the gap. If your brief does not touch it, the gap is buying something this comparison cannot see.
Frequently asked questions
- Which is cheaper, Buildo or xtream?
- xtream is cheaper by roughly 65% — €65/hr median vs €108/hr at Buildo. Published rates cover different things at different agencies — seniority mix, discovery and included revisions are the usual variables — so treat the gap as a question to ask, not a verdict.
- Which has more FinTech experience, Buildo or xtream?
- Both agencies show documented FinTech work and have similar industry breadth. Compare directly on the agency profiles: Buildo and xtream.
- Which scores higher overall, Buildo or xtream?
- xtream scores 60/100, 5 points higher than Buildo at 55/100. See our methodology for how scores are calculated.
- When should I consider both Buildo and xtream?
- Consider running parallel discovery briefs with Buildo and xtream 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.
Read the full reviews
A side-by-side is a starting point. The full assessments carry the portfolio analysis, documented engagements, and the evidence behind every strength and watch-out above.