Details
| Founded: | 1997 |
|---|---|
| Hourly Rates: | N/A |
| Employees: | 500 - 999 |
| Avg. Project Cost: | $5,000,000+ |
| Ratings: |
4.8
6 Reviews
|
Industries Served
Nonprofit & NGO
Gaming & Gambling
Human Resources
Construction
Education
Logistics & Supply Chain
About
Established in 1997, ObjectFrontier Software has a deep heritage of developing commercial products for software vendors, which has given us the insight and experience to create impactful software for any business. They develop all kinds of software, whether it’s commercial software for sale by vendors, enterprise software used by large corporations to drive revenue and improve operations, or branded mobile and cloud software to help companies distinguish themselves in their marketplace.
ObjectFrontier Software Reviews
4.8
6 Reviews
Resolved a network fault at 2am before a single person walked into the office
Marc-Antoine Girard / VP of Innovation | Jun 01, 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
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 |
| 4.5 Quality |
| 5.0 Schedule |
| 5.0 Project Cost |
| 5.0 Willing To Refer |
| Project Type: | IT Managed Services |
|---|---|
| Project Cost: | Less than $10,000 |
| Project Duration: | Dec 2025 - May 2026 |
| Business Type: | Nonprofit & NGO |
|---|---|
| Location: | Montreal, Canada |
Questions & Answers
Please describe your company, your role, and the industry you operate in.
Laurier Tech Partners has been operating in Nonprofit & NGO for a while now, headquartered in Montreal, Canada. As VP of Innovation I sit across both strategic planning and day-to-day technology delivery. We hold our vendors to a high bar because our own clients hold us to one — it's only fair to expect the same discipline from partners.
What specific problem or business challenge led you to hire this company?
Our IT Managed Services capability had become the thing slowing everything else down. New feature requests, client asks, internal initiatives — all of it kept queuing up behind a platform that had been stretched way past what it was originally built for. We needed a proper rebuild, not another patch.
What services did the company provide for your project?
The core of it was IT Managed Services, though their involvement grew to include technical consulting during discovery that meaningfully sharpened our own requirements. They also took full ownership of the third-party integration work, which had been a coordination headache on past projects, and just handled it themselves.
Why did you choose this company over other providers you considered?
The questions they asked during the briefing stage told us most of what we needed to know. Vendors who ask sharp questions during sales tend to bring that same rigor into delivery, and that held up. The technical proposal had real substance, the team was senior from the start, and the pricing was straightforward.
How clearly did the company understand your requirements and business goals?
Really well, partly because they already had Nonprofit & NGO experience that cut down on the amount of context we had to provide. They knew the terminology, asked the right questions, and translated our business requirements into technical specs accurately enough that development barely needed any clarification cycles.
How was your overall experience with their communication and project management?
Proactive and well-calibrated. Technical detail for the engineering side, plain summaries for the steering group, and risk flags that came with a proposed fix attached rather than just a problem statement. The biweekly sprint reviews kept our stakeholders in the loop without requiring them to sit in on every working session.
Did the company deliver the project on time and within your expected budget?
The project came in on schedule. Budget stayed within the agreed ceiling, including one scope addition we asked for ourselves, which was quoted fairly and handled without disturbing the rest of the timeline. Nothing about the invoice came as a surprise.
What tangible results or business impact have you seen since the project was completed?
The ROI model we took to the board was deliberately conservative. Current performance against that model puts us on track to hit payback well ahead of the eighteen-month target we set. The operational efficiency gains in particular have outpaced the model, partly because the new platform's data quality supports decisions the old system simply couldn't.
What did you like most about working with this company?
The team stayed the same the whole way through. The engineers in the discovery sessions were the same ones who built the system. That continuity matters more than people expect, and you really only notice it when it's missing. Every conversation picked up where the last one left off.
Would you recommend this company to others, and would you work with them again?
Absolutely, with one caveat worth mentioning: the value really starts in discovery, so clients who take that phase seriously will get the most out of it. We put real effort in upfront and it clearly paid off in what got delivered.
Technically sharp, commercially sensible, and genuinely easy to work with throughout
Elin Holmqvist / Head of Product Engineering | May 16, 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
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.
| 5.0 Overall Rating |
| 4.5 Quality |
| 5.0 Schedule |
| 5.0 Project Cost |
| 5.0 Willing To Refer |
| Project Type: | Low-Code / No-Code Development |
|---|---|
| Project Cost: | Less than $10,000 |
| Project Duration: | Nov 2025 - Mar 2026 |
| Business Type: | Gaming & Gambling |
|---|---|
| Location: | Uppsala, Sweden |
Questions & Answers
Please describe your company, your role, and the industry you operate in.
As Head of Product Engineering at Vinter Digital AB I oversee technology spend and delivery across our Gaming & Gambling operations out of Uppsala, Sweden. We're a commercially minded business, so every technology decision gets judged on what it actually contributes to the bottom line, not on how elegant it looks on paper.
What specific problem or business challenge led you to hire this company?
Our Low-Code / No-Code Development capability had become the thing slowing everything else down. New feature requests, client asks, internal initiatives — all of it kept queuing up behind a platform that had been stretched way past what it was originally built for. We needed a proper rebuild, not another patch.
What services did the company provide for your project?
Mainly Low-Code / No-Code Development, with some adjacent architecture and QA work folded in. They owned the whole thing from requirements to go-live, including hooking it into four of our existing systems. Not needing a second vendor to cover that ground was genuinely useful, both cost-wise and logistically.
Why did you choose this company over other providers you considered?
We shortlisted five vendors through a structured process. The technical review knocked two out right away. Of the remaining three, this team stood out because their Low-Code / No-Code Development approach was specific rather than generic, backed by actual reference projects in Gaming & Gambling — not just case studies pulled off a website. The reference calls confirmed everything the proposal claimed.
How clearly did the company understand your requirements and business goals?
Thoroughly. The requirements document was detailed enough that our own QA team used it directly to build acceptance criteria. Every user story had a clear business reason attached, and nothing was left open to interpretation. That discipline early on paid off through the rest of development and testing.
How was your overall experience with their communication and project management?
Professional throughout. The project manager always had a clear view of the critical path and flagged changes to it honestly, without spin. The one significant scope change we made mid-project went through a clean process — fairly priced, clearly documented, and absorbed without knocking the rest of the timeline off course.
Did the company deliver the project on time and within your expected budget?
On time and inside the approved budget. Their estimating was notably accurate — they'd broken the work down in enough detail during discovery that the forecast held up the whole way through, instead of drifting with every small change. We had exactly one change request, and it was for scope we added ourselves.
What tangible results or business impact have you seen since the project was completed?
We went live about three months ago. User adoption beat the target we'd set by roughly 20 percent in the first month, and support ticket volume has dropped noticeably since. Features we'd shelved because the old architecture made them too expensive to build are now back on the roadmap.
What did you like most about working with this company?
The team stayed the same the whole way through. The engineers in the discovery sessions were the same ones who built the system. That continuity matters more than people expect, and you really only notice it when it's missing. Every conversation picked up where the last one left off.
Would you recommend this company to others, and would you work with them again?
Yes — though I'll add that they're not the cheapest option out there and they're selective about what they take on. If price is your main filter, look elsewhere. If you need a partner you can trust with a serious Low-Code / No-Code Development program in Gaming & Gambling and expect them to actually deliver against the brief, this is the team.
Built data foundations solid enough that we won't need to revisit them for years
Tanner Ridgeway / VP of Operations Technology | Apr 28, 2026The easiest thing to praise is the technical output itself — solid test coverage, a deployment pipeline that just works, documentation that people actually reference instead of ignoring. But what I keep coming back to is the number of conversations we haven't had to have since launch. No 2am incident calls. No emergency patches. No post-mortems about what went sideways. That absence is really the whole pitch, if you ask me.
Project summary
This project had a board-facing deadline tied to a wider strategic push. We needed a partner who'd treat that date like it was their own problem, not just ours.
| 4.5 Overall Rating |
| 4.5 Quality |
| 4.0 Schedule |
| 4.5 Project Cost |
| 5.0 Willing To Refer |
| Project Type: | Data & Analytics |
|---|---|
| Project Cost: | $500,000+ |
| Project Duration: | Jun 2025 - Feb 2026 |
| Business Type: | Human Resources |
|---|---|
| Location: | Salt Lake City, USA |
Questions & Answers
Please describe your company, your role, and the industry you operate in.
Summit Line Logistics is a Human Resources business headquartered in Salt Lake City, USA. As VP of Operations Technology I'm responsible for the whole technology agenda — infrastructure, product, and how we pick vendors. Every decision we make on the technology side has to tie back to a clear business case before it gets approved.
What specific problem or business challenge led you to hire this company?
A competitor move forced our hand and compressed a roadmap item we'd planned for the following year. The Data & Analytics investment we'd scheduled twelve months out suddenly needed to happen in six, and building it internally in that window wasn't realistic.
What services did the company provide for your project?
Full Data & Analytics delivery, with particular depth on the integration and data migration pieces — the riskiest parts of the whole program. On top of that, they kept a dedicated QA person on the project throughout and left our operations team with a proper runbook at handover.
Why did you choose this company over other providers you considered?
We were coming off a failed engagement and went into vendor selection this time with a lot more scrutiny. We asked pointed questions about how they handle scope changes, how they estimate, how they communicate bad news. The answers were specific and consistent across everyone we spoke to on their team, which gave us confidence it wasn't a rehearsed pitch.
How clearly did the company understand your requirements and business goals?
Really well, partly because they already had Human Resources experience that cut down on the amount of context we had to provide. They knew the terminology, asked the right questions, and translated our business requirements into technical specs accurately enough that development barely needed any clarification cycles.
How was your overall experience with their communication and project management?
Proactive and well-calibrated. Technical detail for the engineering side, plain summaries for the steering group, and risk flags that came with a proposed fix attached rather than just a problem statement. The biweekly sprint reviews kept our stakeholders in the loop without requiring them to sit in on every working session.
Did the company deliver the project on time and within your expected budget?
On time and inside the approved budget. Their estimating was notably accurate — they'd broken the work down in enough detail during discovery that the forecast held up the whole way through, instead of drifting with every small change. We had exactly one change request, and it was for scope we added ourselves.
What tangible results or business impact have you seen since the project was completed?
The ROI model we took to the board was deliberately conservative. Current performance against that model puts us on track to hit payback well ahead of the eighteen-month target we set. The operational efficiency gains in particular have outpaced the model, partly because the new platform's data quality supports decisions the old system simply couldn't.
What did you like most about working with this company?
Their willingness to just be direct. If our requirements were unclear, they said so. If our priorities contradicted each other, they explained why. If an approach we'd assumed was right actually had real downsides, they told us before we'd committed to it. That kind of honesty is exactly what I look for in a long-term partner.
Would you recommend this company to others, and would you work with them again?
Yes — though I'll add that they're not the cheapest option out there and they're selective about what they take on. If price is your main filter, look elsewhere. If you need a partner you can trust with a serious Data & Analytics program in Human Resources and expect them to actually deliver against the brief, this is the team.
Test automation got adopted by developers as a genuine tool, not a box-ticking exercise
Larissa Nogueira / Chief Digital Officer | Apr 11, 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
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.
| 5.0 Overall Rating |
| 5.0 Quality |
| 5.0 Schedule |
| 5.0 Project Cost |
| 5.0 Willing To Refer |
| Project Type: | Quality Assurance & Testing |
|---|---|
| Project Cost: | $10,000 to $49,999 |
| Project Duration: | Oct 2025 - Mar 2026 |
| Business Type: | Construction |
|---|---|
| Location: | Porto Alegre, Brazil |
Questions & Answers
Please describe your company, your role, and the industry you operate in.
I run technology for Serra Tech SA, a growth-stage Construction company based in Porto Alegre, Brazil. My role as Chief Digital Officer covers product engineering, platform operations, and our vendor relationships. We'd hit a point where our internal capacity just couldn't keep pace with what the roadmap demanded.
What specific problem or business challenge led you to hire this company?
We had a clear product direction for our next stage of growth in Construction, but not the internal engineering depth to actually execute it. The Quality Assurance & Testing piece specifically needed specialist skills we couldn't realistically hire for on the timeline our business plan demanded.
What services did the company provide for your project?
The scope ran the full Quality Assurance & Testing lifecycle — discovery, requirements, architecture, development across roughly a dozen sprints, integration testing, performance validation, deployment, and a four-week hypercare window afterward. They also handed over full documentation and ran a knowledge transfer session for our internal team.
Why did you choose this company over other providers you considered?
The questions they asked during the briefing stage told us most of what we needed to know. Vendors who ask sharp questions during sales tend to bring that same rigor into delivery, and that held up. The technical proposal had real substance, the team was senior from the start, and the pricing was straightforward.
How clearly did the company understand your requirements and business goals?
Very well. The discovery phase was more thorough than anything we'd been through with prior vendors. They pushed back on requirements that were vague or contradictory, suggested better alternatives where our own thinking was limited, and produced a spec our internal stakeholders agreed was the clearest version of the product they'd ever seen written down.
How was your overall experience with their communication and project management?
Professional throughout. The project manager always had a clear view of the critical path and flagged changes to it honestly, without spin. The one significant scope change we made mid-project went through a clean process — fairly priced, clearly documented, and absorbed without knocking the rest of the timeline off course.
Did the company deliver the project on time and within your expected budget?
The project came in on schedule. Budget stayed within the agreed ceiling, including one scope addition we asked for ourselves, which was quoted fairly and handled without disturbing the rest of the timeline. Nothing about the invoice came as a surprise.
What tangible results or business impact have you seen since the project was completed?
The clearest measure is how the system's actually performing in production. In the four months since go-live we've had zero major incidents, our page performance scores improved across every Core Web Vitals metric, and two enterprise clients who'd previously flagged our old platform's limits during renewal talks signed again without raising it.
What did you like most about working with this company?
Their willingness to just be direct. If our requirements were unclear, they said so. If our priorities contradicted each other, they explained why. If an approach we'd assumed was right actually had real downsides, they told us before we'd committed to it. That kind of honesty is exactly what I look for in a long-term partner.
Would you recommend this company to others, and would you work with them again?
Yes — though I'll add that they're not the cheapest option out there and they're selective about what they take on. If price is your main filter, look elsewhere. If you need a partner you can trust with a serious Quality Assurance & Testing program in Construction and expect them to actually deliver against the brief, this is the team.
Our distributed team has effectively adopted the virtual space as its default meeting room
Faisal Al-Dosari / Head of Innovation | Mar 16, 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 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.
| 5.0 Overall Rating |
| 5.0 Quality |
| 5.0 Schedule |
| 5.0 Project Cost |
| 5.0 Willing To Refer |
| Project Type: | AR/VR Development |
|---|---|
| Project Cost: | $10,000 to $49,999 |
| Project Duration: | Mar 2025 - Dec 2025 |
| Business Type: | Education |
|---|---|
| Location: | Dammam, Saudi Arabia |
Questions & Answers
Please describe your company, your role, and the industry you operate in.
As Head of Innovation at Oasis Tech Ventures I oversee technology spend and delivery across our Education operations out of Dammam, Saudi Arabia. We're a commercially minded business, so every technology decision gets judged on what it actually contributes to the bottom line, not on how elegant it looks on paper.
What specific problem or business challenge led you to hire this company?
We had a clear product direction for our next stage of growth in Education, but not the internal engineering depth to actually execute it. The AR/VR Development piece specifically needed specialist skills we couldn't realistically hire for on the timeline our business plan demanded.
What services did the company provide for your project?
Mainly AR/VR Development, with some adjacent architecture and QA work folded in. They owned the whole thing from requirements to go-live, including hooking it into four of our existing systems. Not needing a second vendor to cover that ground was genuinely useful, both cost-wise and logistically.
Why did you choose this company over other providers you considered?
We were coming off a failed engagement and went into vendor selection this time with a lot more scrutiny. We asked pointed questions about how they handle scope changes, how they estimate, how they communicate bad news. The answers were specific and consistent across everyone we spoke to on their team, which gave us confidence it wasn't a rehearsed pitch.
How clearly did the company understand your requirements and business goals?
Thoroughly. The requirements document was detailed enough that our own QA team used it directly to build acceptance criteria. Every user story had a clear business reason attached, and nothing was left open to interpretation. That discipline early on paid off through the rest of development and testing.
How was your overall experience with their communication and project management?
Professional throughout. The project manager always had a clear view of the critical path and flagged changes to it honestly, without spin. The one significant scope change we made mid-project went through a clean process — fairly priced, clearly documented, and absorbed without knocking the rest of the timeline off course.
Did the company deliver the project on time and within your expected budget?
Both, yes. One sprint hit a one-week delay from a third-party API dependency outside anyone's control. The team flagged it three weeks ahead of time, laid out two options, and we picked an approach that clawed the schedule back within the same sprint. That's the kind of foresight that separates real project management from just reacting to problems.
What tangible results or business impact have you seen since the project was completed?
The clearest measure is how the system's actually performing in production. In the four months since go-live we've had zero major incidents, our page performance scores improved across every Core Web Vitals metric, and two enterprise clients who'd previously flagged our old platform's limits during renewal talks signed again without raising it.
What did you like most about working with this company?
What they did after launch. A lot of vendors treat go-live as the finish line. This team treated it as the start of a different phase — the hypercare period was substantial, the documentation held up in practice, and they checked back in at the thirty and ninety day marks to go over production metrics with us unprompted.
Would you recommend this company to others, and would you work with them again?
Absolutely, with one caveat worth mentioning: the value really starts in discovery, so clients who take that phase seriously will get the most out of it. We put real effort in upfront and it clearly paid off in what got delivered.
Marketing now ships page updates themselves — no engineering ticket required anymore
Rodrigo Cardoso / VP of Technology | Jan 14, 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
Track-and-trace had gone from a nice-to-have to something every RFP now required, and our platform simply didn't have it. We needed to close that gap before our next tender round.
| 4.5 Overall Rating |
| 4.0 Quality |
| 4.5 Schedule |
| 4.5 Project Cost |
| 5.0 Willing To Refer |
| Project Type: | Web Development |
|---|---|
| Project Cost: | $50,000 to $149,999 |
| Project Duration: | Dec 2024 - Oct 2025 |
| Business Type: | Logistics & Supply Chain |
|---|---|
| Location: | Rio de Janeiro, Brazil |
Questions & Answers
Please describe your company, your role, and the industry you operate in.
I run technology for Costa Verde Digital Ltda, a growth-stage Logistics & Supply Chain company based in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. My role as VP of Technology covers product engineering, platform operations, and our vendor relationships. We'd hit a point where our internal capacity just couldn't keep pace with what the roadmap demanded.
What specific problem or business challenge led you to hire this company?
Our previous vendor had maintained this platform for a few years, and the technical debt had piled up to the point where our delivery speed had dropped to a fraction of what it used to be. We needed fresh engineering eyes and an actual plan to deal with the underlying mess.
What services did the company provide for your project?
Full Web Development delivery, with particular depth on the integration and data migration pieces — the riskiest parts of the whole program. On top of that, they kept a dedicated QA person on the project throughout and left our operations team with a proper runbook at handover.
Why did you choose this company over other providers you considered?
The questions they asked during the briefing stage told us most of what we needed to know. Vendors who ask sharp questions during sales tend to bring that same rigor into delivery, and that held up. The technical proposal had real substance, the team was senior from the start, and the pricing was straightforward.
How clearly did the company understand your requirements and business goals?
Really well, partly because they already had Logistics & Supply Chain experience that cut down on the amount of context we had to provide. They knew the terminology, asked the right questions, and translated our business requirements into technical specs accurately enough that development barely needed any clarification cycles.
How was your overall experience with their communication and project management?
The most structured project management I've dealt with from any outside vendor. Sprint planning was tight, acceptance criteria were specific, and retrospectives actually led to changes rather than just being a box to tick. The backlog and risk register were both treated as live tools, not paperwork. I never once had to chase a status update.
Did the company deliver the project on time and within your expected budget?
On time and inside the approved budget. Their estimating was notably accurate — they'd broken the work down in enough detail during discovery that the forecast held up the whole way through, instead of drifting with every small change. We had exactly one change request, and it was for scope we added ourselves.
What tangible results or business impact have you seen since the project was completed?
The clearest measure is how the system's actually performing in production. In the four months since go-live we've had zero major incidents, our page performance scores improved across every Core Web Vitals metric, and two enterprise clients who'd previously flagged our old platform's limits during renewal talks signed again without raising it.
What did you like most about working with this company?
What they did after launch. A lot of vendors treat go-live as the finish line. This team treated it as the start of a different phase — the hypercare period was substantial, the documentation held up in practice, and they checked back in at the thirty and ninety day marks to go over production metrics with us unprompted.
Would you recommend this company to others, and would you work with them again?
Yes — though I'll add that they're not the cheapest option out there and they're selective about what they take on. If price is your main filter, look elsewhere. If you need a partner you can trust with a serious Web Development program in Logistics & Supply Chain and expect them to actually deliver against the brief, this is the team.
FAQ
Frequently Asked Questions
Got questions about our specialized technology solutions? We have the answers to help you make informed decisions.
ObjectFrontier Software typically covers the standard range of software development work — mobile apps, web platforms, custom internal tools, UI/UX design, cloud infrastructure, AI integrations, and larger enterprise builds. Its core focus areas include Blockchain Development, Game Development and Mobile App Development.
What ObjectFrontier Software charges comes down to a handful of variables — how complex the project is, the number of development hours involved, the tech stack required, team size, and which engagement model you pick. Based on available data, ObjectFrontier Software's typical hourly rate is around N/A.
ObjectFrontier Software has delivered projects across a range of different industries, including Education, Fashion & Apparel, Travel & Hospitality, Media & Entertainment, Real Estate and Telecommunications.
The exact stack shifts by project, but ObjectFrontier Software commonly works across things like React, Angular, Vue.js, Node.js, Python, .NET, Java, PHP, Flutter, React Native, native iOS and Android, and cloud platforms like AWS and Azure. For context, it has experience across industries such as Education, Fashion & Apparel, Travel & Hospitality, Media & Entertainment, Real Estate and Telecommunications, and it has been operating since 1997.
It depends heavily on scope. A lean MVP might be a matter of weeks, while a full enterprise system or a larger digital transformation project can stretch into months once you factor in development, testing, and deployment. With a team of 500 - 999 professionals, ObjectFrontier Software can scale resources based on project urgency.
What tends to set ObjectFrontier Software apart usually comes down to some mix of technical depth, relevant industry experience, how clients describe working with them, their development approach, communication habits, and whether they can actually deliver something that scales. Founded in 1997, the company has built a track record of delivering projects across various industries.
That depends on where ObjectFrontier Software is based and who they primarily serve — some firms like this operate fully offshore, some are local-first, and plenty run a hybrid model that mixes both. For context, its listed capabilities span Blockchain Development, Game Development and Mobile App Development, and its typical hourly rate is around N/A.
Most professional shops, including ObjectFrontier Software, expect to sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement before getting into specifics — it's a fairly standard ask and a reasonable one to make before sharing anything sensitive. For context, it has experience across industries such as Education, Fashion & Apparel, Travel & Hospitality, Media & Entertainment, Real Estate and Telecommunications, and it has been operating since 1997.
Modernizing legacy software is usually within scope for a firm like ObjectFrontier Software — re-platforming, refactoring old code, and moving things onto current frameworks or cloud infrastructure without necessarily rebuilding everything from zero. For context, its listed capabilities span Blockchain Development, Game Development and Mobile App Development, and it reports a team size of 500 - 999 professionals.
ObjectFrontier Software generally runs something close to a standard structured process — requirements gathering, UI/UX design, development in agile sprints, QA testing along the way, deployment, and support once it's live. For context, its listed capabilities span Blockchain Development, Game Development and Mobile App Development, and it has been operating since 1997.
