Birchy
Outsourcing & BPO
Research
Mplus — data sheet
- Headquarters
- Croatia — Zagreb; BPTO vertical of BOSQAR INVEST d.d. (Zagreb Stock Exchange)
- Operating since
- 2007
- Score
- 50 of 100 · rank #8 of 8
- Tier
- Specialist
- Delivery Proof (of 45)
- 18
- Capability Fit (of 55)
- 32
Evidence on file
Each line is a datapoint with its grade. Grades are the ones the anchors act on: a sub-criterion scored 5 requires at least one E1 or E2 source, and evidence that is entirely E3 caps the sub-criterion at 3.
- Zagreb HQ, founded 2007; BPTO vertical of BOSQAR INVEST d.d., listed on the Zagreb Stock Exchange (filings) E1
- ~12,800 employees, 42 centers, 13 countries, 32+ languages E2
- 2025 acquisitions: Conectart (largest Czech BPO, ~2,000 staff) and Valoris Center (Romania) E2
- Client evidence: sector concentration telco/finance/energy stated; no named clients found in any public material, including the annual report E5
- Review platforms: no meaningful Clutch/G2 footprint — confirmed absence; no analyst-evaluation coverage found E2E5
- Certifications: none found on public pages or in the annual report. Units almost certainly hold ISO 27001, but nothing is published, so nothing is scored E5
- Employee platforms: thin on Glassdoor, with local CEE platforms dominating; no usable employer-rating sample found E5
Criterion scores
Sub-criterion anchor scores in criterion order, with the weighted criterion total computed from them. Multiply each anchor by its sub-criterion weight over five and sum: that is the whole arithmetic, and it is why this total can be checked without taking anyone's word.
| Code | Criterion | Sub-criterion anchors | Weighted | Max | Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A1 | Independent client evidence | 1 / 0 / 1 | 1.8 | 14 | |
| A2 | Market presence & tenure | 5 / 5 / 1 | 5.6 | 8 | |
| A3 | Certifications & compliance | 1 / 1 / 1 | 2.4 | 12 | Scored on published evidence only. Certificates are very likely held but are not published anywhere findable, and the framework scores what is published. |
| A4 | Delivery stability | 2 / 5 | 4.2 | 6 | |
| A5 | Transparency & verifiability | 4 / 4 | 4 | 5 | Public-company reporting is this provider’s transparency strength. |
| B1 | Service scope & channels | 3 / 3 / 3 | 4.8 | 8 | |
| B2 | Language & geographic reach | 3 / 5 / 4 | 7.8 | 10 | |
| B3 | Quality management system | 3 / 3 / 3 | 6 | 10 | |
| B4 | Security & data protection operations | 2 / 1 / 3 | 3.4 | 8 | |
| B5 | Flexibility & commercial model | 2 / 3 / 1 | 2.8 | 7 | |
| B6 | Technology & AI operations | 3 / 2 / 3 | 3.6 | 7 | |
| B7 | Vertical expertise | 4 / 3 | 3.6 | 5 |
Axis A subtotal 18 of 45 · Axis B subtotal 32 of 55 · total 50 of 100. Each weighted figure is (anchor score ÷ 5) × sub-criterion weight, summed — the rule printed in the appendix.
Flags and open questions
- This score is a publication gap, not a capability judgement. Publishing certificates and named clients would raise it materially through the corrections process — that is the system working as designed.
- Delivery consistency across units integrated in the last eighteen months is not publicly demonstrable.
- Largest remaining evidence gap: Certifications and named clients unpublished
Reading of the evidence
The scale is real and E1-verified; almost everything else about delivery quality is unpublished. The profile verdict survives as a segment verdict, but the score reflects the evidence gap. If this provider engages the corrections process with certificates and named clients, the score legitimately rises. That is the system working.
Challenge this sheet
Every line above is meant to be checkable. If a datapoint is wrong, out of date, or missing a certificate identifier we could not find, the corrections process is open: submit the evidence and the score is re-derived through the anchors. Facts are correctable; scores follow facts. Accepted corrections are logged in the changelog.