# elunic vs Pexon Consulting

> Two top-rated AI Development 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/elunic-vs-pexon-consulting
Generated: 2026-09-20 · Curated by Gabor Kiss · No paid placements — inclusion, score, and rank are never sold.

## Facts
| | elunic | Pexon Consulting |
|---|---|---|
| Editorial score | 61.8/100 | 70.8/100 |
| Hourly rate | not published | €130-175/hr (directory-listed) |
| Team size | 10-49 | 50-249 |
| Location | Munich, Germany | Munich, Germany |
| Founded | 2013 | 2019 |
| Last reviewed | 2026-09-20 | 2026-09-20 |
| Services | AI Development, AI Consulting, AI Agents | AI Consulting, AI Development, AI Automation |
| Industries | Manufacturing, Healthcare | Healthcare, Manufacturing, Public Sector |

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

Four named AI installations are documented on live production lines: thyssenkrupp Automotive Body Solutions inspecting car-body doors inline, DB Cargo screening images of up to 400 freight wagons a day for slipped transport film as a camera retrofit over a cloud interface, voestalpine Automotive Components Schwäbisch Gmünd running 360-degree inspection cells on the press-shop outfeed conveyor, and Murrelektronik's "Murrlin" assistant answering technical questions over more than 95,000 product articles on elunic's eluna Multi Agent platform.

What none of the write-ups carry is an outcome figure—no reject rate before and after, no inspection hours saved, no payback measured—so the published evidence shows that the systems were installed and accepted, not what they returned; the 99 percent sensitivity quoted in the thyssenkrupp study is the software's stated guarantee, not a result measured on that line.

Two live showcase pages also carry defects worth noticing: the voestalpine study still prints a Lorem ipsum placeholder quote under the name Max Mustermann, and the Jentner study closes with a testimonial from Schunk's innovation director about a different project.

The weaker fit is a buyer who wants one name on one contract—the impressum states that operations are carried out by the subsidiary elunic Systems GmbH, the inspection product carries an AI.SEE GmbH copyright, and the voestalpine study says voestalpine commissioned elunic AG, so settle which entity signs and which one supports the system.

### Key strengths
- Client-side names are on the record: Manuel Gentner at thyssenkrupp, Achim Leister at DB Cargo and CDO Fabian Distel at Murrelektronik are quoted by name and title, so references are traceable
- AI.SEE goes into a line both ways—inline at thyssenkrupp and voestalpine, camera retrofit over a cloud interface at DB Cargo—so an existing conveyor does not have to be rebuilt to start
- eluna Multi Agent, the platform behind the Murrelektronik assistant, is published as open source and offered from SaaS to on-premises, which limits how much of a deployment is tied to one vendor

### Good to know
- No case study publishes a before-and-after number—ask each reference what the reject rate, the inspection time or the payback period actually did after go-live
- Confirm which entity signs and which supports: the impressum assigns operations to elunic Systems GmbH, while the voestalpine study says voestalpine commissioned elunic AG
- The GROB FactoryChat and FactoryDashboard study still reads "currently in beta phase" and dates to 2021—ask what happened to it before counting it as delivered work

## 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 elunic for:
- closer collaboration at a smaller team scale
- broader service offering — also covers AI Agents

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, elunic 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, elunic or Pexon Consulting?
Pexon Consulting scores 70.8/100, 9 points higher than elunic at 61.8/100. See our methodology for how scores are calculated.

### Which is faster to engage, elunic or Pexon Consulting?
Neither publishes lead times, so this is a read on team size rather than a measured answer. elunic runs the smaller team, which usually means fewer procurement gates and a shorter path to kickoff. Pexon Consulting runs a larger one, which tends to mean more steps but more capacity to start parallel workstreams. Current kickoff availability is the number that actually decides it — ask both.

### When should I consider both elunic and Pexon Consulting?
Consider running parallel discovery briefs with elunic 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