Details
| Founded: | 2016 |
|---|---|
| Hourly Rates: | N/A |
| Employees: | 2 - 9 |
| Avg. Project Cost: | $50,000+ |
| Ratings: |
4.6
8 Reviews
|
Industries Served
About
Linum Labs is a software studio for blockchain architecture that strives to be at the forefront of Web3 thought leadership and production in Africa and Europe. They strive to offer high-quality education for a wide range of people and organizations in order to create sustainable and empowered communities. Their vision is to use blockchain technology to allow a new frictionless and distributed economy with inclusion for all.
Linum Labs Reviews
They clearly understood the gap between an AI demo and an AI that survives production
Preston Locke / Director of Technology | May 17, 2026Going in, the integration work was what worried me most. Our systems landscape is messy, a couple of the third-party APIs we depend on are barely documented, and one of those vendors has a well-earned reputation for slow, inconsistent support. This team absorbed all of that. They documented what the upstream providers wouldn't, built in resilience wherever the upstream behavior was flaky, and shipped something that has worked exactly as specified since go-live. I genuinely couldn't have asked for more on that front.
Project summary
Our campaign workflow had sprawled across a dozen disconnected tools with constant manual reconciliation. It was slowing us down and introducing errors we couldn't afford.
| 5.0 Overall Rating |
| 5.0 Quality |
| 5.0 Schedule |
| 5.0 Project Cost |
| 5.0 Willing To Refer |
| Project Type: | AI & Machine Learning |
|---|---|
| Project Cost: | $500,000+ |
| Project Duration: | Aug 2025 - Mar 2026 |
| Business Type: | Advertising & Marketing |
|---|---|
| Location: | Philadelphia, USA |
Questions & Answers
Got the outcome we asked for, delivered the way we needed it, by people we'd hire again
Angus Fairbanks / Chief Digital Officer | Apr 16, 2026We handed this team an aggressive deadline, a genuinely complicated scope, and a client-side team on our end that was stretched thin and slow to respond at times. They handled all of it without complaint. When they needed something from us they asked precisely and on time. When they didn't, they just kept moving. The project still landed on schedule despite our side being the weaker link for a good chunk of it, which tells you something about how they operate under pressure.
Project summary
Our funnel data made it obvious exactly where we were losing customers, and it wasn't subtle. We needed a platform capable of the experience our competitors were already delivering.
| 4.5 Overall Rating |
| 4.5 Quality |
| 4.5 Schedule |
| 4.5 Project Cost |
| 5.0 Willing To Refer |
| Project Type: | Embedded Systems Development |
|---|---|
| Project Cost: | $500,000+ |
| Project Duration: | Dec 2025 - Mar 2026 |
| Business Type: | Retail & E-commerce |
|---|---|
| Location: | Brisbane, Australia |
Questions & Answers
Rare skill: explained serious findings clearly to people with zero security background
Percy Wren / Director of eCommerce | Mar 27, 2026Our stakeholder list for this project included board members, operations leads, compliance, and end users, all with wildly different levels of technical fluency and different definitions of success. Managing that mix well is genuinely hard, and this team did it better than any vendor we've worked with. They shifted register depending on who they were talking to without ever dumbing down the substance, kept expectations honest the whole way through, and delivered something each group could point to as meeting their own bar. That range is rare.
Project summary
A previous project had worked fine in staging and fallen apart in production. We approached vendor selection this time with a lot more scrutiny as a direct result.
| 4.5 Overall Rating |
| 4.0 Quality |
| 4.5 Schedule |
| 4.5 Project Cost |
| 5.0 Willing To Refer |
| Project Type: | Cybersecurity |
|---|---|
| Project Cost: | $50,000 to $149,999 |
| Project Duration: | Sep 2025 - Feb 2026 |
| Business Type: | Mining & Metals |
|---|---|
| Location: | Birmingham, UK |
Questions & Answers
They were thinking mobile-first before we'd even finished writing the brief
Bianca Alvarado / Chief Product Officer | Mar 18, 2026Our stakeholder list for this project included board members, operations leads, compliance, and end users, all with wildly different levels of technical fluency and different definitions of success. Managing that mix well is genuinely hard, and this team did it better than any vendor we've worked with. They shifted register depending on who they were talking to without ever dumbing down the substance, kept expectations honest the whole way through, and delivered something each group could point to as meeting their own bar. That range is rare.
Project summary
Cross-agency data sharing had been stuck for years because of incompatible systems. A secure integration layer was the prerequisite for nearly everything else on our roadmap.
| 4.5 Overall Rating |
| 4.0 Quality |
| 4.5 Schedule |
| 4.0 Project Cost |
| 5.0 Willing To Refer |
| Project Type: | Mobile App Development |
|---|---|
| Project Cost: | $500,000+ |
| Project Duration: | Aug 2025 - Dec 2025 |
| Business Type: | Government & Public Sector |
|---|---|
| Location: | San Diego, USA |
Questions & Answers
Built data foundations solid enough that we won't need to revisit them for years
Min-Jun Kang / VP of Engineering | Feb 27, 2026Looking back, the thing that stands out most is how uneventful the whole project was. Technology projects of this size tend to generate their share of fire drills and awkward escalation calls. This one really didn't. Issues got flagged early enough that they never became incidents, scope changes went through an actual process instead of a tense phone call, and risks were tracked rather than just hoped away. That kind of quiet competence is unusual in my experience, and it made the whole thing feel easier on our end than I know it was on theirs.
Project summary
Our regulatory submission timelines needed a document platform that could handle version control, permissions, and audit trails at a scale our existing tools were never built for.
| 4.5 Overall Rating |
| 5.0 Quality |
| 4.5 Schedule |
| 4.5 Project Cost |
| 5.0 Willing To Refer |
| Project Type: | Data & Analytics |
|---|---|
| Project Cost: | $10,000 to $49,999 |
| Project Duration: | Jun 2025 - Jan 2026 |
| Business Type: | Pharmaceuticals & Biotechnology |
|---|---|
| Location: | Busan, South Korea |
Questions & Answers
Brought coherence to a product carrying four years of accumulated visual inconsistency
Marcus Teo / CTO | Feb 09, 2026We had proposals in hand ranging from roughly half to well over double what we eventually paid this team. What set their proposal apart wasn't the price — it was that the number matched what they actually delivered, almost line for line. I've been burned before by proposals that were really just opening offers in a negotiation that continues throughout the project. That wasn't the case here, and I don't say that lightly.
Project summary
Our LMS had been designed for a classroom-only world, and two years of declining satisfaction scores made the hybrid-delivery gaps impossible to ignore any longer.
| 4.5 Overall Rating |
| 4.0 Quality |
| 4.0 Schedule |
| 5.0 Project Cost |
| 5.0 Willing To Refer |
| Project Type: | UI/UX Design |
|---|---|
| Project Cost: | $10,000 to $49,999 |
| Project Duration: | Mar 2025 - Jan 2026 |
| Business Type: | Education |
|---|---|
| Location: | Singapore |
Questions & Answers
Consolidated seven legacy systems down into one coherent data model
Cormac Whelan / VP of Engineering | Jan 26, 2026I went into this engagement genuinely skeptical. A previous vendor had left us with a system that technically worked but that nobody trusted, and I wasn't interested in repeating that experience. This team earned trust the slow way — solid discovery documentation, technical proposals that held up under scrutiny, sprints that landed when promised, and ultimately a production system that has simply behaved. I don't open conversations about them with caveats anymore.
Project summary
Years of incremental patches had left us with a platform that technically worked but was quietly holding the business back strategically. A proper rebuild was the agreed way forward.
| 5.0 Overall Rating |
| 5.0 Quality |
| 5.0 Schedule |
| 5.0 Project Cost |
| 5.0 Willing To Refer |
| Project Type: | ERP Development |
|---|---|
| Project Cost: | Less than $10,000 |
| Project Duration: | Apr 2025 - Dec 2025 |
| Business Type: | Mining & Metals |
|---|---|
| Location: | Cork, Ireland |
Questions & Answers
Presented real trade-offs instead of a single pre-decided answer dressed up as options
Hamish Bellamy / GM of Technology | Jan 22, 2026What actually moved the needle wasn't their ability to follow a spec — any competent team can do that. It was their willingness to push back when a requirement didn't make sense, explain clearly why, and help us decide on something better instead. That extra layer of judgment took the final product past what we'd actually asked for and closer to what we genuinely needed, which isn't always the same thing.
Project summary
Our headcount had grown faster than our platform engineering depth. We needed an experienced team to close that gap while we hired, without letting quality or the roadmap slip in the meantime.
| 4.5 Overall Rating |
| 4.5 Quality |
| 4.5 Schedule |
| 4.5 Project Cost |
| 5.0 Willing To Refer |
| Project Type: | IT Consulting |
|---|---|
| Project Cost: | $10,000 to $49,999 |
| Project Duration: | Jun 2025 - Dec 2025 |
| Business Type: | Information Technology |
|---|---|
| Location: | Melbourne, Australia |
Questions & Answers
Frequently Asked Questions
Got questions about our specialized technology solutions? We have the answers to help you make informed decisions.

