Dojo Five vs Conclusive Engineering: full comparison for 2026
Quick verdict
Dojo Five (4.5/5) edges ahead of Conclusive Engineering (4.5/5) overall. Dojo Five is the better choice for FDA-ready firmware for connected medical devices and diagnostics. Conclusive Engineering is the stronger option for RFPs needing PCB development bundled with firmware under ISO 26262 or IEC 61508. The right choice depends on your project size, budget, and required tech stack.
Dojo Five vs Conclusive Engineering: head-to-head summary
| Criterion | Dojo Five | Conclusive Engineering |
|---|---|---|
| Founded | 2018 | 2018 |
| HQ | Saint Paul, MN, USA | Katowice, Poland |
| Team size | 26 | 30–50 |
| Rating | 4.5 / 5 | 4.5 / 5 |
| Primary differentiator | Firmware delivery scoped exclusively around FDA-regulated medical device and diagnostics programs, not a general embedded practice | Listed Nordic Semiconductor and Texas Instruments partner combining in-house PCB development with firmware and FreeBSD depth |
| Pricing model | Project-based firmware engagements for medical device programs | Project-based engineering engagements |
| Min. engagement | Not published | Not published |
| Primary tech stack | C, C++, Medical Device Firmware Standards | FreeRTOS, Embedded Linux, FreeBSD |
| Industries served | Medical devices, Diagnostics | Automotive, Healthcare, Industrial, Manufacturing |
Dojo Five vs Conclusive Engineering: 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.
Conclusive Engineering
Conclusive Engineering was founded in 2018 in Katowice, Poland by Jakub Klama and Wojciech Kloska, with a team most sources place between 30 and 50 engineers. Its scope covers embedded systems design and manufacturing support, spanning microcontroller and FPGA-based firmware alongside in-house hardware design and PCB development, with automotive and healthcare clients where ISO 26262 and IEC 61508 alignment factor into vendor selection. Listed partner status with Nordic Semiconductor and Texas Instruments gives a procurement evaluator a documented, third-party-verifiable credential rather than a self-reported claim.
Services and capabilities: Dojo Five vs Conclusive Engineering
| Capability | Dojo Five | Conclusive Engineering |
|---|---|---|
| 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 Conclusive Engineering
| Framework / platform | Dojo Five | Conclusive Engineering |
|---|---|---|
| C | ✓ | ✓ |
| C++ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Embedded Linux | N/A | ✓ |
| PCB Design | N/A | N/A |
| FPGA | 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 Conclusive Engineering
| Criterion | Dojo Five | Conclusive Engineering |
|---|---|---|
| Minimum engagement | Not published | Not published |
| Engagement models | Project-based firmware development | Project-based engineering, Design-phase consulting |
| Rate transparency | Not public | Not public |
| Price tier | Mid-market | Mid-market |
Target audience comparison: Dojo Five vs Conclusive Engineering
| Dimension | Dojo Five | Conclusive Engineering |
|---|---|---|
| Best company size | Startup to mid-market | Startup to mid-market |
| Best industries | Medical devices, Diagnostics | Automotive, Healthcare, Industrial |
| 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 | Combined PCB and firmware development scoped under a single SOW, ISO 26262-aligned automotive control module procurement |
| Typical project type | Project-based firmware development | Project-based engineering |
Dojo Five vs Conclusive Engineering: 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 |
| Conclusive Engineering | |
|---|---|
| + | Nordic Semiconductor and Texas Instruments partner status is verifiable in each vendor's own public directory, useful for an RFP vendor-qualification step |
| + | In-house PCB development means a hardware+firmware line item can be scoped to one vendor instead of two |
| + | ISO 26262 and IEC 61508 alignment work suits safety-relevant automotive and industrial procurement requirements |
| + | FreeBSD depth is uncommon among competing bidders, most of whom default to Linux or bare-metal only |
| - | Team size estimates vary between roughly 30 and 50 engineers depending on source, worth confirming directly for a large program's bench-depth requirement |
| - | 7 years of operating history is shorter than several larger competitors an RFP evaluation might weigh for track record |
| - | No published pricing or minimum engagement threshold |
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 Conclusive Engineering?
A typical fit: combined PCB and firmware development scoped under a single SOW.
Listed Nordic Semiconductor and Texas Instruments partner combining in-house PCB development with firmware and FreeBSD depth. Minimum engagement is not publicly disclosed. Works best with clients in Automotive, Healthcare, Industrial, Manufacturing.
Decision matrix: Dojo Five vs Conclusive Engineering
| 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 | Check each company's engagement model |
| Your budget is at the lower end | Compare: Dojo Five (Not published) vs Conclusive Engineering (Not published) |
| You need specialist depth in a specific vertical | Conclusive Engineering |
| You need staff augmentation or team extension | Neither; consider alternatives that offer staff aug |
| You need consulting before committing to a build | Dojo Five |
Use case fit: Dojo Five vs Conclusive Engineering
| Use case | Dojo Five fit | Conclusive Engineering 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 |
| Combined PCB and firmware development scoped under a single SOW | Limited | Strong | Conclusive Engineering |
| ISO 26262-aligned automotive control module procurement | Limited | Strong | Conclusive Engineering |
| Fixed-price build | Limited | Limited | Both equally |
| Staff augmentation | Limited | Limited | Both equally |
Verdict: Dojo Five vs Conclusive Engineering
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.
Conclusive Engineering (4.5/5) is worth a look if you need ISO 26262-aligned automotive control module procurement. If your situation matches that, Conclusive Engineering is a competitive option.
Related comparisons
Dojo Five vs Conclusive Engineering FAQ
Is Dojo Five better than Conclusive Engineering?
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. Conclusive Engineering's strongest advantage: nordic Semiconductor and Texas Instruments partner status is verifiable in each vendor's own public directory, useful for an RFP vendor-qualification step.
How do Dojo Five and Conclusive Engineering differ in pricing?
Dojo Five uses project-based firmware engagements for medical device programs pricing. Conclusive Engineering uses project-based engineering 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 Conclusive Engineering?
Conclusive Engineering 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 Conclusive Engineering?
Dojo Five's primary differentiator is: firmware delivery scoped exclusively around FDA-regulated medical device and diagnostics programs, not a general embedded practice. Conclusive Engineering's primary differentiator is: listed Nordic Semiconductor and Texas Instruments partner combining in-house PCB development with firmware and FreeBSD depth. They also differ in team size (26 vs 30–50), minimum engagement (Not published vs Not published), and primary industries served (Medical devices, Diagnostics vs Automotive, Healthcare).
Verify all details directly with each service provider before making a decision.