Details
| Founded: | 2012 |
|---|---|
| Hourly Rates: | N/A |
| Employees: | 2 - 9 |
| Avg. Project Cost: | $10,000+ |
| Ratings: |
4.5
8 Reviews
|
Industries Served
About
They specializes in web and mobile app development. They are glad to have succeeded the equally high level of client satisfaction over these small and large companies. They fully believe that technology can produce a change in their lives and they are always passionate about the positive impact it can have on the actual world business. They pride themselves on doing excellent work at a fair price, with exceptional customer service.
PocketCake Reviews
Our distributed team has effectively adopted the virtual space as its default meeting room
Mahnoor Sheikh / Head of Technology | May 31, 2026This was our fourth agency in three years, and I say that with some embarrassment. Every previous engagement had looked promising on paper and fallen apart somewhere in delivery. What was different here was the sequencing: they spent real time understanding the actual problem before proposing anything, rather than pattern-matching to a solution they already knew how to sell. The build ran to schedule, our own engineers had genuinely positive things to say during handover, and four months into live operation we haven't had a single critical incident. We're already talking about the next phase with them.
Project summary
Our internal engineering capacity was fully committed to keeping existing systems running, with no room for a build of this size. An outside partner with the right depth was really our only option.
| 4.5 Overall Rating |
| 4.5 Quality |
| 4.0 Schedule |
| 4.5 Project Cost |
| 5.0 Willing To Refer |
| Project Type: | AR/VR Development |
|---|---|
| Project Cost: | $10,000 to $49,999 |
| Project Duration: | Sep 2025 - May 2026 |
| Business Type: | Agriculture |
|---|---|
| Location: | Faisalabad, Pakistan |
Questions & Answers
Got the outcome we asked for, delivered the way we needed it, by people we'd hire again
Franziska Wagner / Chief Innovation Officer | May 15, 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
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 |
| 4.0 Quality |
| 4.0 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: | Aug 2025 - Feb 2026 |
| Business Type: | Pharmaceuticals & Biotechnology |
|---|---|
| Location: | Frankfurt, Germany |
Questions & Answers
Their pen test found gaps our previous vendor had missed two years running
Elin Holmqvist / Head of Product Engineering | May 09, 2026Five months post-launch, we're running at roughly double the transaction volume we'd specified in the original scope document, and the platform hasn't needed a single structural change to handle it. That's the real tell for whether a team designed for what you told them versus what you were actually going to need. We're now scoping a second phase and I expect this to be a multi-year relationship at this point.
Project summary
Warehouse errors were becoming visible to clients, not just internal reporting. A modernized WMS was already the agreed direction internally — we just needed someone to actually build it.
| 4.5 Overall Rating |
| 4.0 Quality |
| 4.0 Schedule |
| 5.0 Project Cost |
| 5.0 Willing To Refer |
| Project Type: | Cybersecurity |
|---|---|
| Project Cost: | $10,000 to $49,999 |
| Project Duration: | Aug 2025 - Mar 2026 |
| Business Type: | Logistics & Supply Chain |
|---|---|
| Location: | Uppsala, Sweden |
Questions & Answers
Started as a single project and earned a permanent spot on our preferred vendor list
Femke Visser / Head of Platform Engineering | Feb 18, 2026This was our fourth agency in three years, and I say that with some embarrassment. Every previous engagement had looked promising on paper and fallen apart somewhere in delivery. What was different here was the sequencing: they spent real time understanding the actual problem before proposing anything, rather than pattern-matching to a solution they already knew how to sell. The build ran to schedule, our own engineers had genuinely positive things to say during handover, and four months into live operation we haven't had a single critical incident. We're already talking about the next phase with them.
Project summary
Our client portal hadn't been touched since it launched years earlier, and clients had started comparing it unfavorably to competitors' portals in live pitches.
| 4.5 Overall Rating |
| 5.0 Quality |
| 5.0 Schedule |
| 4.5 Project Cost |
| 5.0 Willing To Refer |
| Project Type: | Embedded Systems Development |
|---|---|
| Project Cost: | $10,000 to $49,999 |
| Project Duration: | Feb 2025 - Nov 2025 |
| Business Type: | Legal Services |
|---|---|
| Location: | The Hague, Netherlands |
Questions & Answers
Two years post-launch and our engineers still hold this codebase up as the standard to match
Willem Jansen / Chief Technology Officer | Feb 16, 2026Five months post-launch, we're running at roughly double the transaction volume we'd specified in the original scope document, and the platform hasn't needed a single structural change to handle it. That's the real tell for whether a team designed for what you told them versus what you were actually going to need. We're now scoping a second phase and I expect this to be a multi-year relationship at this point.
Project summary
Our actuarial models had outgrown the reporting pipeline feeding them, and the resulting data lag was introducing real risk into pricing decisions the business wasn't comfortable carrying anymore.
| 4.5 Overall Rating |
| 4.5 Quality |
| 4.0 Schedule |
| 4.0 Project Cost |
| 5.0 Willing To Refer |
| Project Type: | Software Development |
|---|---|
| Project Cost: | Less than $10,000 |
| Project Duration: | Jun 2025 - Jan 2026 |
| Business Type: | Insurance |
|---|---|
| Location: | Rotterdam, Netherlands |
Questions & Answers
A partner who guarded our roadmap the way we would have guarded it ourselves
Grayson Whitfield / VP of Engineering | Jan 13, 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
Remote care had gone from a pilot program to a core part of our business, and our technology hadn't caught up. We needed a compliant telehealth platform on a timeline the market wasn't going to wait for.
| 4.5 Overall Rating |
| 4.5 Quality |
| 4.5 Schedule |
| 4.5 Project Cost |
| 5.0 Willing To Refer |
| Project Type: | Software Development |
|---|---|
| Project Cost: | $500,000+ |
| Project Duration: | Feb 2025 - Oct 2025 |
| Business Type: | Healthcare |
|---|---|
| Location: | Boston, USA |
Questions & Answers
Had something running in production for the board to see inside of two months
Preston Locke / Director of Technology | Jan 01, 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
New digital service standards required every citizen-facing application to hit accessibility and performance benchmarks our legacy systems simply couldn't reach. Patching them wasn't realistic.
| 4.5 Overall Rating |
| 4.0 Quality |
| 4.5 Schedule |
| 5.0 Project Cost |
| 5.0 Willing To Refer |
| Project Type: | AI & Machine Learning |
|---|---|
| Project Cost: | $50,000 to $149,999 |
| Project Duration: | Apr 2025 - Nov 2025 |
| Business Type: | Government & Public Sector |
|---|---|
| Location: | Philadelphia, USA |
Questions & Answers
Time-to-publish dropped from days to under an hour
Anton Berggren / Chief Technology Officer | Jan 01, 2026Five months post-launch, we're running at roughly double the transaction volume we'd specified in the original scope document, and the platform hasn't needed a single structural change to handle it. That's the real tell for whether a team designed for what you told them versus what you were actually going to need. We're now scoping a second phase and I expect this to be a multi-year relationship at this point.
Project summary
A licensing deal had handed us a major catalogue, but our streaming infrastructure couldn't deliver it reliably at scale. We needed a cloud-native video platform inside of six months.
| 4.5 Overall Rating |
| 4.0 Quality |
| 4.5 Schedule |
| 4.5 Project Cost |
| 5.0 Willing To Refer |
| Project Type: | CMS Development |
|---|---|
| Project Cost: | $150,000 to $499,999 |
| Project Duration: | May 2025 - Dec 2025 |
| Business Type: | Media & Entertainment |
|---|---|
| Location: | Malmö, Sweden |
Questions & Answers
Frequently Asked Questions
Got questions about our specialized technology solutions? We have the answers to help you make informed decisions.

