Dojo Five vs A-listware: full comparison for 2026
Quick verdict
Dojo Five (4.5/5) edges ahead of A-listware (3.9/5) overall. Dojo Five is the better choice for FDA-ready firmware for connected medical devices and diagnostics. A-listware is the stronger option for staff augmentation RFPs needing remote embedded firmware engineering capacity. The right choice depends on your project size, budget, and required tech stack.
Dojo Five vs A-listware: head-to-head summary
| Criterion | Dojo Five | A-listware |
|---|---|---|
| Founded | 2018 | 2017 |
| HQ | Saint Paul, MN, USA | London, UK (R&D center in Ukraine) |
| Team size | 26 | 51–200 |
| Rating | 4.5 / 5 | 3.9 / 5 |
| Primary differentiator | Firmware delivery scoped exclusively around FDA-regulated medical device and diagnostics programs, not a general embedded practice | Remote engineering team delivery model with embedded firmware and legacy modernization as named service lines |
| Pricing model | Project-based firmware engagements for medical device programs | Staff augmentation and dedicated remote team engagements |
| Min. engagement | Not published | Not published |
| Primary tech stack | C, C++, Medical Device Firmware Standards | C, C++, Legacy System Modernization Tooling |
| Industries served | Medical devices, Diagnostics | Industrial IoT, Legacy hardware modernization |
Dojo Five vs A-listware: overview
Dojo Five
Dojo Five was founded in 2018 and is headquartered in Saint Paul, Minnesota with a team of 26 engineers. The firm's stated scope is narrow and deliberate: production-ready embedded firmware for connected medical devices and diagnostics, delivered on time and on budget, without the broader industrial or consumer electronics work that dilutes focus at larger firms. For an RFP built around a specific medical device program, that narrowness reads as depth rather than a limitation, since every engineer on the team works inside the same regulatory and reliability constraints day to day.
A-listware
A-listware was founded in 2017 and is headquartered in London, UK, with an R&D center in Ukraine and a reported 51 to 200 employees. The company's core model centers on delivering remote engineering teams to clients, with embedded systems and IoT development, including firmware development, legacy system modernization, and hardware integration, named among its service lines. For an RFP structured as staff augmentation rather than a fixed-deliverable project, A-listware's remote-team model is built specifically for that engagement shape.
Services and capabilities: Dojo Five vs A-listware
| Capability | Dojo Five | A-listware |
|---|---|---|
| Firmware development | ✓ | ✓ |
| Hardware / PCB co-design | ✗ | ✗ |
| Functional safety / certification | ✓ | ✗ |
| Defense / aerospace credentials | ✗ | ✗ |
| Medical device firmware | ✓ | ✗ |
| Secure firmware updates | ✗ | ✗ |
| IoT connectivity | ✗ | ✓ |
| Embedded Linux | ✗ | ✗ |
| Staff augmentation | ✗ | ✓ |
Tech stack comparison: Dojo Five vs A-listware
| Framework / platform | Dojo Five | A-listware |
|---|---|---|
| C | ✓ | ✓ |
| C++ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Embedded Linux | N/A | N/A |
| PCB Design | N/A | N/A |
| FPGA | N/A | N/A |
| MISRA C | N/A | N/A |
| ITAR | N/A | N/A |
| AWS IoT | N/A | N/A |
| ASIL | N/A | N/A |
Pricing comparison: Dojo Five vs A-listware
| Criterion | Dojo Five | A-listware |
|---|---|---|
| Minimum engagement | Not published | Not published |
| Engagement models | Project-based firmware development | Staff augmentation, Dedicated remote teams |
| Rate transparency | Not public | Not public |
| Price tier | Mid-market | Mid-market |
Target audience comparison: Dojo Five vs A-listware
| Dimension | Dojo Five | A-listware |
|---|---|---|
| Best company size | Startup to mid-market | Startup to mid-market |
| Best industries | Medical devices, Diagnostics | Industrial IoT, Legacy hardware modernization |
| Best use cases | Firmware development for a connected diagnostic device ahead of FDA submission, Production-ready firmware handoff for a medical device already through concept and hardware design | Staff augmentation RFP for an in-house firmware team needing additional remote engineering capacity, Legacy embedded system modernization for an aging industrial product |
| Typical project type | Project-based firmware development | Staff augmentation |
Dojo Five vs A-listware: pros and cons
| Dojo Five | |
|---|---|
| + | Sole focus on connected medical devices and diagnostics means the entire team works inside FDA-relevant constraints, not a fraction of it |
| + | Stated commitment to on-time, on-budget delivery is a specific procurement claim, not a generic marketing line |
| + | 7 years of operating history built entirely around this one vertical |
| + | Small team size gives a procurement contact direct access to senior firmware engineers rather than account layers |
| - | 26 engineers caps concurrent capacity; an RFP needing parallel workstreams across several device programs may need to confirm bench depth first |
| - | Its medical-device-only focus is a narrower fit for an RFP spanning non-medical hardware categories |
| - | No published pricing or minimum engagement figure |
| A-listware | |
|---|---|
| + | Staff augmentation model gives an RFP evaluator direct control over embedded engineers working inside their own existing processes |
| + | Legacy system modernization is a named specialty, useful for an RFP centered on an aging codebase rather than greenfield development |
| + | UK headquarters with a Ukraine R&D center gives Western business hours coordination with Eastern European delivery cost structure |
| + | 8 years of operating history with a reported 51 to 200 employees |
| - | Firmware development is one line among several IoT and embedded services rather than the company's sole specialty |
| - | Staff augmentation suits an RFP where the buyer already has in-house firmware leadership; it is a narrower fit for a fully managed project delivery ask |
| - | No published pricing or minimum engagement figure |
Who should choose Dojo Five?
A typical fit: firmware development for a connected diagnostic device ahead of FDA submission.
Firmware delivery scoped exclusively around FDA-regulated medical device and diagnostics programs, not a general embedded practice. Minimum engagement is not publicly disclosed. Works best with clients in Medical devices, Diagnostics.
Who should choose A-listware?
A typical fit: staff augmentation RFP for an in-house firmware team needing additional remote engineering capacity.
Remote engineering team delivery model with embedded firmware and legacy modernization as named service lines. Minimum engagement is not publicly disclosed. Works best with clients in Industrial IoT, Legacy hardware modernization.
Decision matrix: Dojo Five vs A-listware
| Your situation | Recommended choice |
|---|---|
| You need full-ownership delivery on a defined project scope | Both offer fixed-price models |
| You need a large dedicated team for an ongoing programme | A-listware |
| Your budget is at the lower end | Compare: Dojo Five (Not published) vs A-listware (Not published) |
| You need specialist depth in a specific vertical | Dojo Five |
| You need staff augmentation or team extension | A-listware |
| You need consulting before committing to a build | Dojo Five |
Use case fit: Dojo Five vs A-listware
| Use case | Dojo Five fit | A-listware fit | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Firmware development for a connected diagnostic device ahead of FDA submission | Strong | Strong | Both equally |
| Production-ready firmware handoff for a medical device already through concept and hardware design | Strong | Limited | Dojo Five |
| Staff augmentation RFP for an in-house firmware team needing additional remote engineering capacity | Limited | Strong | A-listware |
| Legacy embedded system modernization for an aging industrial product | Limited | Strong | A-listware |
| Fixed-price build | Limited | Limited | Both equally |
| Staff augmentation | Limited | Strong | A-listware |
Verdict: Dojo Five vs A-listware
Dojo Five (4.5/5) is the stronger overall choice for most Embedded Firmware projects. Firmware delivery scoped exclusively around FDA-regulated medical device and diagnostics programs, not a general embedded practice.
A-listware (3.9/5) is worth a look if you need legacy embedded system modernization for an aging industrial product. If your situation matches that, A-listware is a competitive option.
Related comparisons
Dojo Five vs A-listware FAQ
Is Dojo Five better than A-listware?
Dojo Five (4.5/5) scores higher overall, but "better" depends on your use case. Dojo Five's strongest advantage: sole focus on connected medical devices and diagnostics means the entire team works inside FDA-relevant constraints, not a fraction of it. A-listware's strongest advantage: staff augmentation model gives an RFP evaluator direct control over embedded engineers working inside their own existing processes.
How do Dojo Five and A-listware differ in pricing?
Dojo Five uses project-based firmware engagements for medical device programs pricing. A-listware uses staff augmentation and dedicated remote team engagements pricing. Neither firm publishes a full rate card; a discovery call is required for project-specific quotes.
Which is better for enterprise: Dojo Five or A-listware?
A-listware is the larger team and typically the better enterprise-scale choice. For very large programmes, verify team size and compliance coverage directly with each service provider before shortlisting.
What are the main differences between Dojo Five and A-listware?
Dojo Five's primary differentiator is: firmware delivery scoped exclusively around FDA-regulated medical device and diagnostics programs, not a general embedded practice. A-listware's primary differentiator is: remote engineering team delivery model with embedded firmware and legacy modernization as named service lines. They also differ in team size (26 vs 51–200), minimum engagement (Not published vs Not published), and primary industries served (Medical devices, Diagnostics vs Industrial IoT, Legacy hardware modernization).
Verify all details directly with each service provider before making a decision.