# Intelygenz vs Plain Concepts

> Two top-rated AI Consulting agencies in Madrid. 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/intelygenz-vs-plain-concepts
Generated: 2026-09-17 · Curated by Gabor Kiss · No paid placements — inclusion, score, and rank are never sold.

## Facts
| | Intelygenz | Plain Concepts |
|---|---|---|
| Editorial score | 60/100 | 68/100 |
| Hourly rate | €45-85/hr (directory-listed) | €85-130/hr (directory-listed) |
| Team size | 50-249 | 250+ |
| Location | Madrid, Spain | Madrid, Spain |
| Founded | 2002 | 2006 |
| Last reviewed | 2026-09-07 | 2026-09-07 |
| Services | AI Consulting, AI Automation, AI Development | AI Consulting, AI Development, Generative AI |
| Industries | FinTech, SaaS & B2B | Healthcare, FinTech, Manufacturing |

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

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 client is not.

Founded 2002 and part of VASS since 2022, with 12 of those years on AI specifically, at a listed €45–85/h.

Best for buyers in banking, insurance or telecoms who weigh a measured outcome above a nameable logo—and who will ask for the reference call themselves, because seven of eight studies will not supply one.

### Key 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

### Good to know
- 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

## Our take on Plain Concepts
Reviewed 2026-09-07 by Gabor Kiss against published evidence.

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 behind a content-moderation layer, and at Nestlé the work spans phishing-URL vision inspection, an MLOps platform and a governed generative-AI platform for employees.

The caveat is measurement—most studies close on qualitative bullets like "more efficient processes", so the Ribera 96% is the exception rather than the pattern.

The weaker fit is buyers outside the Microsoft stack: nearly every published build lands on Azure, and at €85–130/h that stack opinion is priced at the top of the Spanish market.

### Key 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

### Good to know
- 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

## Which to choose
Choose Intelygenz for:
- 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 for:
- 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

## Questions buyers ask

### 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.

---
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