# In The Pocket vs ML6

> Two top-rated AI Development agencies in Ghent. 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/in-the-pocket-vs-ml6
Generated: 2026-09-17 · Curated by Gabor Kiss · No paid placements — inclusion, score, and rank are never sold.

## Facts
| | In The Pocket | ML6 |
|---|---|---|
| Editorial score | 65.8/100 | 74.8/100 |
| Hourly rate | not published | not published |
| Team size | 250+ | 50-249 |
| Location | Ghent, Belgium | Ghent, Belgium |
| Founded | 2010 | — |
| Last reviewed | 2026-09-07 | 2026-08-04 |
| Services | AI Development, Generative AI, AI Consulting | AI Consulting, AI Development, AI Agents, Generative AI |
| Industries | FinTech, Public Sector, Manufacturing | FinTech, Manufacturing, Public Sector |

## Our take on In The Pocket
Reviewed 2026-09-07 by Gabor Kiss against published evidence.

The AI work is named and dated: Penny, an assistant handling Bancontact Company's 8,000 monthly support tickets on Azure with OpenAI models, Jira integration and human verification, reported as a 75% cut in response time—and three protocol-consistency tools built for cancer research organization EORTC in 2026, tested on live protocols and handed to EORTC's own environment.

Client staff are quoted by name and role in both, and the older SD Worx mail classifier is published with its accuracy stated at three-quarters rather than rounded up.

The caveat is proportion—AI is one line inside a 200-person product studio whose published work is mostly apps, platforms and augmented reality, so ask how many people on your team have shipped a language-model system.

The weaker fit is buyers who want a specialist ML shop or a model built from scratch; this is product delivery with AI inside it.

### Key strengths
- Named clients with named client-side staff quoted, across banking (KBC, Bancontact Company), HR services (SD Worx) and semiconductors (Melexis)
- The EORTC write-up states what was deliberately left out of scope and that the tools stayed human-in-the-loop in a regulated clinical setting
- Runs its own internal AI platform on Open WebUI across GPT, Claude, Gemini and Mistral with per-use cost control, at 4,500 requests a week

### Good to know
- AI is a minority of the published portfolio—ask for the AI team specifically and their last three language-model deliveries, not the studio's overall case list
- EORTC is described as a validated pilot handed over for integration, not a system In The Pocket operates—clarify who runs and maintains what you commission
- No rates published and delivery spans five offices including Bucharest—confirm the blend, the location of your team and the day rate before scoping

## Our take on ML6
Reviewed 2026-08-04 by Gabor Kiss against published evidence.

The published case library runs to 34 studies, and the ones read in full carry before-and-after numbers rather than adjectives—Scout24's HeyImmo assistant moved user satisfaction from 68% to 75% and first-token latency from 8 seconds to under 5, and Syngenta's lab-inspection vision model doubled analysis speed across half a million wells a year.

Studies name the stack down to the component (OpenAI direct API, Pydantic agents, DataDog on Scout24's own AWS; Vertex AI for Syngenta) and describe how the client was left able to run the system without them.

Work spans regulated and public buyers—the national cyber security center, the EU Council newsroom, Flemish highways—alongside industrial names.

The weaker fit is a buyer wanting a fixed quote up front: no rates, headcount, or founding year appear anywhere public.

### Key strengths
- Case studies publish client-side quotes from named engineering managers, not marketing testimonials
- Published outcomes at the national cyber security center include 3x faster vulnerability handling and 70% faster NIS2 response
- Both major clouds are in evidence—AWS and Google Vertex AI appear in separately documented builds

### Good to know
- Two energy studies run anonymized as "Energy Company"—ask for a speakable reference if you need one in that sector
- No published rates, team size, or founding year; anchor with the European range on our rate index and ask who staffs the work
- Delivery sits across four offices—confirm which one your team would come from

## Which to choose
Choose In The Pocket for:
- larger team capacity for multi-stream or enterprise-scale programs
- an overall editorial score of 65.8/100

Choose ML6 for:
- closer collaboration at a smaller team scale
- broader service offering — also covers AI Agents
- a higher overall editorial score

## Questions buyers ask

### Which has more FinTech experience, In The Pocket or ML6?
Both agencies show documented FinTech work and have similar industry breadth. Compare directly on the agency profiles: In The Pocket and ML6.

### Which scores higher overall, In The Pocket or ML6?
ML6 scores 74.8/100, 9 points higher than In The Pocket at 65.8/100. See our methodology for how scores are calculated.

### When should I consider both In The Pocket and ML6?
Consider running parallel discovery briefs with In The Pocket and ML6 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