Agency Comparison
Intelygenz vs Plain Concepts
Two top-rated AI Consulting agencies in Madrid.
Comparison updated · Newest review
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 | Intelygenz | Plain Concepts |
|---|---|---|
| Editorial score | 60/100 | Higher score: 68/100 |
| Hourly rate | Lower published rate: €45-85/hr | €85-130/hr |
| Team size | 50-249 | Larger team: 250+ |
| Location | Madrid, Spain | Madrid, Spain |
| Founded | 2002 | 2006 |
| Last reviewed | Sep 7, 2026 | Sep 7, 2026 |
What we said about each
Our take on Intelygenz
Eight AI case studies, all in banking and telecoms, and all but one anonymized. The exception is MetTel, whose ticket-triage system is published with 52% of corrective maintenance operations resolved by AI, 45% faster resolution and 75% correct next-action predictions, plus a quote from their operations side. The anonymized studies carry the same shape of number—95% call-prioritization accuracy, 89% of inquiries routed without a human—so the measurement discipline is visible even where the…
Reviewed Sep 7, 2026
Read the full assessment →Our take on Plain Concepts
The AI portfolio is named, dated and Azure-deep: ALEX writes cataract discharge reports for the Ribera healthcare group on Azure OpenAI and Azure AI Search with dynamic few-shot retrieval, validated at 96% of reports needing no physician correction, with the head of ophthalmology quoted by name. AENOR's standards search pairs a machine-learning search engine with an assistant over 50,000 published certifications, Thera4All's Brain runs Azure OpenAI inside Plain Concepts' own Evergine engine…
Reviewed Sep 7, 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 Intelygenz if you need
- a more cost-effective engagement (~40% lower rate)
- closer collaboration at a smaller team scale
- disclosed specialization in SaaS & B2B
- broader service offering — also covers AI Automation
Choose Plain Concepts if you need
- larger team capacity for multi-stream or enterprise-scale programs
- disclosed specialization in Healthcare / Manufacturing
- broader service offering — also covers Generative AI
- a higher overall editorial score
Strengths and watch-outs
Both upsides and risks, straight from our editorial assessments.
Intelygenz
Strengths
- The MetTel automation is published with three hard numbers and a client quote: 52% of corrective maintenance resolved by AI, 45% faster resolution, 75% correct next-action predictions
- Every case study states a measured outcome, which is rarer in this market than the anonymity suggests
- €45–85/h for enterprise AI delivery, with more than 20 years of delivery history behind it
Watch-outs
- Seven of eight case studies name no client—ask for a reference in your sector, and for who owns the model after handover
- Published work concentrates in banking and telecoms; if your domain sits elsewhere, ask what transfers
- Ownership has sat with VASS since 2022—confirm which entity signs, staffs and supports the engagement
Plain Concepts
Strengths
- Four named-client AI systems published with the stack named, including a healthcare deployment validated at 96% of generated reports requiring no physician correction
- Own graphics engine (Evergine) and a Microsoft relationship deep enough that Nestlé's 700-expert Global IT Hub uses them across security, MLOps and generative AI
- More than 700 employees published, so a multi-workstream program is staffable without subcontracting
Watch-outs
- Most case studies close on qualitative bullets rather than measured outcomes—ask for the metric that moved on the engagement closest to yours
- Nearly all published work is Azure-native; if you run on AWS or GCP, ask for a delivered system on your stack
- At €85–130/h they price above most of the Spanish market—scope tightly, since published projects range from multi-year programs to single features
Service coverage
Where the two overlap, and where each covers ground the other does not.
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.
Intelygenz
Rate: €45-85/hr
€21,600–€40,800
Plain Concepts
Rate: €85-130/hr
€40,800–€62,400
At this scope the published midpoints are about €20,400 apart, with Intelygenz lower. Plain Concepts publishes Healthcare work that Intelygenz 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, Intelygenz or Plain Concepts?
- Intelygenz is cheaper by roughly 40% — €65/hr median vs €108/hr at Plain Concepts. 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, Intelygenz or Plain Concepts?
- Both agencies show documented FinTech work. Plain Concepts has the broader industry stack overall, with disclosed experience in Healthcare, Manufacturing beyond their shared focus.
- Which scores higher overall, Intelygenz or Plain Concepts?
- Plain Concepts scores 68/100, 8 points higher than Intelygenz at 60/100. See our methodology for how scores are calculated.
- When should I consider both Intelygenz and Plain Concepts?
- Consider running parallel discovery briefs with Intelygenz and Plain Concepts 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.