Think

Visit Website Write a Review Claim this Company

Details

Founded:
2003
Hourly Rates:
N/A
Employees:
2 - 9
Avg. Project Cost:
$2,500,000+
Ratings:
4.1 7 Reviews

Services

  • Mobile App Development
  • Web Development
  • Web Design
  • E-commerce Development
  • Social Media Marketing
  • SEO

Industries Served

Telecommunications Construction Nonprofit & NGO Logistics & Supply Chain Fashion & Apparel Financial Services

Where We Specialize

15% No Code/ Low Code
No Code/ Low Code 15%
OutSystems 12%
Progressive Web App 11%
Software Development 10%
Big Data Analytics 10%
Mobile App Development 8%
Metaverse Development 8%
Xano 8%
AI Development 7%
IoT Development 5%
DevOps 4%
DevOps Implementation 2%

Industry Expertise

Healthcare100%

Typical Project Size

50% Midmarket Business
39% Enterprise
11% Small Business

About

Think works with clients to plan, build, and ship digital products. The company's main offerings are Web Development and Mobile App Development. With 2 - 9 people on staff, Think can take on projects of varying size. Projects with this company average about $100,000. Overall, Think is one of the options worth shortlisting for a technology project.

Think Reviews

4.1 7 Reviews
Submit Review

Every line item in the scope was delivered, on schedule, and passed our review without rework

Wei Ling Ong / VP of Engineering | May 16, 2026

We 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

Portal usability complaints were showing up disproportionately among the B2B accounts we were about to lose at renewal. The self-service experience needed a full rebuild before that cycle hit.

  • Overall Rating 4.0
  • Quality 4.0
  • Schedule 4.0
  • Project Cost 3.5
  • Willing To Refer 5.0
Project Type:
Software Development
Project Cost:
$150,000 to $499,999
Project Duration:
Jul 2025 - Apr 2026
Business Type:
Telecommunications
Location:
Singapore

Questions & Answers

Please describe your company, your role, and the industry you operate in.
Lion City Technologies Pte Ltd is a Telecommunications business headquartered in Singapore. As VP of Engineering 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?
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?
The scope ran the full Software Development 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?
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?
Better than we understood them ourselves, honestly. The workshops they ran surfaced assumptions we'd never questioned and exposed a few requirements that flatly contradicted each other. Sorting that out before development started saved us from what would have been serious rework later.
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?
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 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.

Two years post-launch and our engineers still hold this codebase up as the standard to match

Anton Berggren / Chief Technology Officer | May 11, 2026

Going 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 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.

  • Overall Rating 4.0
  • Quality 4.0
  • Schedule 3.5
  • Project Cost 4.5
  • Willing To Refer 5.0
Project Type:
Software Development
Project Cost:
$10,000 to $49,999
Project Duration:
Jun 2025 - Mar 2026
Business Type:
Construction
Location:
Malmö, Sweden

Questions & Answers

Please describe your company, your role, and the industry you operate in.
As Chief Technology Officer at Baltic Cloud AB I oversee technology spend and delivery across our Construction operations out of Malmö, 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?
Regulation in our Construction segment shifted and the compliance deadline came from the regulator, not from us. The scale of the Software Development changes required justified bringing in a specialist rather than pulling our internal team off the product roadmap to handle it.
What services did the company provide for your project?
Mainly Software 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 Software Development approach was specific rather than generic, backed by actual reference projects in Construction — 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?
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?
Genuinely excellent, especially given the time difference between Malmö, Sweden and the delivery team. Written updates were consistent and specific, anything needing a decision got same-day turnaround, and nothing slipped through the cracks across the whole engagement.
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 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 instinct for never losing the business goal in the middle of technical decisions. I've worked with technically strong teams before who lose that thread once things get complicated. This team kept every architectural call tied back to the outcome we'd actually agreed to, which made the harder trade-off conversations a lot easier.
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.

Treated our product's quality like it was their own reputation on the line

Morgan Ellsworth / Head of Digital Health | May 11, 2026

This 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.

  • Overall Rating 4.5
  • Quality 4.5
  • Schedule 4.5
  • Project Cost 4.5
  • Willing To Refer 5.0
Project Type:
Quality Assurance & Testing
Project Cost:
$150,000 to $499,999
Project Duration:
Jul 2025 - Mar 2026
Business Type:
Nonprofit & NGO
Location:
Phoenix, USA

Questions & Answers

Please describe your company, your role, and the industry you operate in.
I run technology for Cedarview Health Systems, a growth-stage Nonprofit & NGO company based in Phoenix, USA. My role as Head of Digital Health 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?
The core of it was Quality Assurance & Testing, 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?
A peer in the Nonprofit & NGO space had used them for something similar in Quality Assurance & Testing and recommended them without hesitation. Our own due diligence backed that up. Domain knowledge, Quality Assurance & Testing depth, and a track record of actually delivering — that combination made the decision easy.
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?
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?
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?
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?
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.

Firmware, cloud layer, and dashboard actually talk to each other cleanly — rarer than it should be

Ananya Raman / Director of Engineering | Apr 08, 2026

Our 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

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.

  • Overall Rating 4.0
  • Quality 4.0
  • Schedule 4.0
  • Project Cost 4.0
  • Willing To Refer 5.0
Project Type:
IoT Development
Project Cost:
$150,000 to $499,999
Project Duration:
Nov 2025 - Feb 2026
Business Type:
Logistics & Supply Chain
Location:
Kochi, India

Questions & Answers

Please describe your company, your role, and the industry you operate in.
Bridgeway Ventures has been operating in Logistics & Supply Chain for a while now, headquartered in Kochi, India. As Director of Engineering 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 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?
The scope ran the full IoT Development 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?
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 IoT Development approach was specific rather than generic, backed by actual reference projects in Logistics & Supply Chain — 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?
Better than we understood them ourselves, honestly. The workshops they ran surfaced assumptions we'd never questioned and exposed a few requirements that flatly contradicted each other. Sorting that out before development started saved us from what would have been serious rework later.
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 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?
Yes, no hesitation. I've already referred them twice within my own Logistics & Supply Chain network, both times to people facing IoT Development problems similar to ours. I made those referrals confidently because I know the experience I had was repeatable, not a one-off stroke of luck on our project.

The first CMS rollout where editors asked for more of it, not less

Bianca Alvarado / Chief Product Officer | Apr 04, 2026

Our 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 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.

  • Overall Rating 4.0
  • Quality 4.0
  • Schedule 4.0
  • Project Cost 4.0
  • Willing To Refer 5.0
Project Type:
CMS Development
Project Cost:
$10,000 to $49,999
Project Duration:
Dec 2025 - Mar 2026
Business Type:
Fashion & Apparel
Location:
San Diego, USA

Questions & Answers

Please describe your company, your role, and the industry you operate in.
I run technology for Lumen Media Collective, a growth-stage Fashion & Apparel company based in San Diego, USA. My role as Chief Product 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?
Regulation in our Fashion & Apparel segment shifted and the compliance deadline came from the regulator, not from us. The scale of the CMS Development changes required justified bringing in a specialist rather than pulling our internal team off the product roadmap to handle it.
What services did the company provide for your project?
The core of it was CMS Development, 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?
A peer in the Fashion & Apparel space had used them for something similar in CMS Development and recommended them without hesitation. Our own due diligence backed that up. Domain knowledge, CMS Development depth, and a track record of actually delivering — that combination made the decision easy.
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?
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?
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?
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?
Without reservation. We're already in early conversations about a second engagement, and I expect this to turn into a multi-year relationship. Anyone in Fashion & Apparel looking for real CMS Development depth paired with actual delivery discipline should have this team near the top of their list.

Their architecture review steered us away from a vendor decision we would have regretted

Tanner Ridgeway / VP of Operations Technology | Feb 07, 2026

The 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

New open banking rules meant our API layer needed rebuilding from scratch, with compliance designed in from the start rather than patched on afterward.

  • Overall Rating 4.0
  • Quality 4.0
  • Schedule 4.5
  • Project Cost 4.0
  • Willing To Refer 5.0
Project Type:
IT Consulting
Project Cost:
$50,000 to $149,999
Project Duration:
Jun 2025 - Dec 2025
Business Type:
Financial Services
Location:
Salt Lake City, USA

Questions & Answers

Please describe your company, your role, and the industry you operate in.
Summit Line Logistics has been operating in Financial Services for a while now, headquartered in Salt Lake City, USA. As VP of Operations Technology 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?
A competitor move forced our hand and compressed a roadmap item we'd planned for the following year. The IT Consulting 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?
Mainly IT Consulting, 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?
A peer in the Financial Services space had used them for something similar in IT Consulting and recommended them without hesitation. Our own due diligence backed that up. Domain knowledge, IT Consulting depth, and a track record of actually delivering — that combination made the decision easy.
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?
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?
Hard to isolate perfectly given everything else going on in the business, but the numbers we can attribute directly to the IT Consulting work are solid: session duration up, conversion up, error rate down, and our NPS for that touchpoint has moved noticeably. Our account managers say it's coming up positively in client conversations now too.
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?
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.

They clearly understood the gap between an AI demo and an AI that survives production

Femke Visser / Head of Platform Engineering | Jan 05, 2026

We 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

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.

  • Overall Rating 4.0
  • Quality 4.5
  • Schedule 4.0
  • Project Cost 4.0
  • Willing To Refer 5.0
Project Type:
AI & Machine Learning
Project Cost:
$500,000+
Project Duration:
Sep 2025 - Dec 2025
Business Type:
Logistics & Supply Chain
Location:
The Hague, Netherlands

Questions & Answers

Please describe your company, your role, and the industry you operate in.
I run technology for Polder Digital BV, a growth-stage Logistics & Supply Chain company based in The Hague, Netherlands. My role as Head of Platform Engineering 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 AI & Machine Learning 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 AI & Machine Learning, 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?
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?
Genuinely excellent, especially given the time difference between The Hague, Netherlands and the delivery team. Written updates were consistent and specific, anything needing a decision got same-day turnaround, and nothing slipped through the cracks across the whole engagement.
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?
Hard to isolate perfectly given everything else going on in the business, but the numbers we can attribute directly to the AI & Machine Learning work are solid: session duration up, conversion up, error rate down, and our NPS for that touchpoint has moved noticeably. Our account managers say it's coming up positively in client conversations now too.
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 AI & Machine Learning 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.

Think 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 E-commerce Development, Mobile App Development, SEO, Social Media Marketing and Web Design.

What Think 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, Think's typical hourly rate is around N/A.

The exact stack shifts by project, but Think 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 Human Resources, Retail & E-commerce, Financial Services, Gaming & Gambling, Sports & Fitness and Energy & Utilities, and it reports a team size of 2 - 9 professionals.

Like most established software teams, Think typically sticks around post-launch for ongoing maintenance — bug fixes, performance tuning, security patching, new feature work, and general technical support. For context, it has experience across industries such as Human Resources, Retail & E-commerce, Financial Services, Gaming & Gambling, Sports & Fitness and Energy & Utilities, and it reports a team size of 2 - 9 professionals.

That depends on where Think 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, it has experience across industries such as Human Resources, Retail & E-commerce, Financial Services, Gaming & Gambling, Sports & Fitness and Energy & Utilities, and its listed capabilities span E-commerce Development, Mobile App Development, SEO, Social Media Marketing and Web Design.

Usually, yes — a dedicated developer arrangement is a common option with firms like Think, where you get engineers working exclusively on your project as an extension of your in-house team rather than as a separate outsourced unit. For context, its listed capabilities span E-commerce Development, Mobile App Development, SEO, Social Media Marketing and Web Design, and it reports a team size of 2 - 9 professionals.

Plenty of modern software teams, Think included, now build real AI and machine learning features — chatbots, predictive models, computer vision, and automation that goes beyond simple rule-based scripts. For context, its listed capabilities span E-commerce Development, Mobile App Development, SEO, Social Media Marketing and Web Design, and its typical hourly rate is around N/A.

Think isn't necessarily limited to one region and may take on clients across several countries, depending on market demand and business partnerships.

Modernizing legacy software is usually within scope for a firm like Think — 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 E-commerce Development, Mobile App Development, SEO, Social Media Marketing and Web Design, and it has been operating since 2003.

The most reliable route is giving Think a clear, specific brief up front — through their website form, a direct email, or a call — since a vague ask tends to get a vague answer back, while a concrete one usually gets a proper estimate. For context, its listed capabilities span E-commerce Development, Mobile App Development, SEO, Social Media Marketing and Web Design, and its typical hourly rate is around N/A.
Get Listed