Dojo Five vs Integra Sources: full comparison for 2026
Quick verdict
Dojo Five (4.5/5) edges ahead of Integra Sources (4.1/5) overall. Dojo Five is the better choice for FDA-ready firmware for connected medical devices and diagnostics. Integra Sources is the stronger option for RFPs seeking a high-project-volume full-cycle hardware+firmware vendor. The right choice depends on your project size, budget, and required tech stack.
Dojo Five vs Integra Sources: head-to-head summary
| Criterion | Dojo Five | Integra Sources |
|---|---|---|
| Founded | 2018 | 2014 |
| HQ | Saint Paul, MN, USA | Astana, Kazakhstan |
| Team size | 26 | 24–51 |
| Rating | 4.5 / 5 | 4.1 / 5 |
| Primary differentiator | Firmware delivery scoped exclusively around FDA-regulated medical device and diagnostics programs, not a general embedded practice | More than 250 completed hardware and firmware projects for over 100 clients across four continents |
| Pricing model | Project-based firmware engagements for medical device programs | Project-based full-cycle engineering engagements |
| Min. engagement | Not published | Not published |
| Primary tech stack | C, C++, Medical Device Firmware Standards | C, C++, PCB Design |
| Industries served | Medical devices, Diagnostics | Consumer electronics, IoT hardware products, Robotics |
Dojo Five vs Integra Sources: 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.
Integra Sources
Integra Sources was founded in 2014 and is headquartered in Astana, Kazakhstan, with a team reported between roughly 24 and 51 employees across Asia, North America, and Europe. The company's scope covers electronic device design, firmware and software development, and full-cycle engineering from PCB and FPGA design through robotics and connected-product monitoring systems, with more than 250 completed projects for over 100 clients across Europe, the USA, Australia, and Asia cited as its delivery track record. For an RFP evaluating project-volume evidence, that 250-project figure is a specific, referenceable claim.
Services and capabilities: Dojo Five vs Integra Sources
| Capability | Dojo Five | Integra Sources |
|---|---|---|
| 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 Integra Sources
| Framework / platform | Dojo Five | Integra Sources |
|---|---|---|
| C | ✓ | ✓ |
| C++ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Embedded Linux | N/A | N/A |
| PCB Design | 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 Integra Sources
| Criterion | Dojo Five | Integra Sources |
|---|---|---|
| Minimum engagement | Not published | Not published |
| Engagement models | Project-based firmware development | Project-based full-cycle engineering |
| Rate transparency | Not public | Not public |
| Price tier | Mid-market | Mid-market |
Target audience comparison: Dojo Five vs Integra Sources
| Dimension | Dojo Five | Integra Sources |
|---|---|---|
| Best company size | Startup to mid-market | Startup to mid-market |
| Best industries | Medical devices, Diagnostics | Consumer electronics, IoT hardware products, Robotics |
| 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 | Full-cycle hardware and firmware RFP evaluated on prior project volume, Robotics firmware development paired with PCB and FPGA design |
| Typical project type | Project-based firmware development | Project-based full-cycle engineering |
Dojo Five vs Integra Sources: 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 |
| Integra Sources | |
|---|---|
| + | More than 250 completed projects across four continents is a specific, checkable delivery-volume claim |
| + | Full-cycle scope from PCB and FPGA design through firmware and connected-product monitoring reduces vendor coordination |
| + | 11 years of operating history with a client base spanning Europe, the USA, Australia, and Asia |
| + | Robotics engineering experience is a specific capability not every embedded firmware vendor lists |
| - | Reported team size varies between roughly 24 and 51 across sources, worth confirming for large concurrent RFP capacity needs |
| - | No published pricing or minimum engagement figure |
| - | Its Kazakhstan headquarters may raise timezone or in-person coordination questions for some North American or European RFPs |
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 Integra Sources?
A typical fit: full-cycle hardware and firmware RFP evaluated on prior project volume.
More than 250 completed hardware and firmware projects for over 100 clients across four continents. Minimum engagement is not publicly disclosed. Works best with clients in Consumer electronics, IoT hardware products, Robotics.
Decision matrix: Dojo Five vs Integra Sources
| 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 Integra Sources (Not published) |
| You need specialist depth in a specific vertical | Integra Sources |
| 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 Integra Sources
| Use case | Dojo Five fit | Integra Sources 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 |
| Full-cycle hardware and firmware RFP evaluated on prior project volume | Limited | Strong | Integra Sources |
| Robotics firmware development paired with PCB and FPGA design | Limited | Strong | Integra Sources |
| Fixed-price build | Limited | Limited | Both equally |
| Staff augmentation | Limited | Limited | Both equally |
Verdict: Dojo Five vs Integra Sources
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.
Integra Sources (4.1/5) is worth a look if you need robotics firmware development paired with PCB and FPGA design. If your situation matches that, Integra Sources is a competitive option.
Related comparisons
Dojo Five vs Integra Sources FAQ
Is Dojo Five better than Integra Sources?
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. Integra Sources's strongest advantage: more than 250 completed projects across four continents is a specific, checkable delivery-volume claim.
How do Dojo Five and Integra Sources differ in pricing?
Dojo Five uses project-based firmware engagements for medical device programs pricing. Integra Sources uses project-based full-cycle 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 Integra Sources?
Integra Sources 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 Integra Sources?
Dojo Five's primary differentiator is: firmware delivery scoped exclusively around FDA-regulated medical device and diagnostics programs, not a general embedded practice. Integra Sources's primary differentiator is: more than 250 completed hardware and firmware projects for over 100 clients across four continents. They also differ in team size (26 vs 24–51), minimum engagement (Not published vs Not published), and primary industries served (Medical devices, Diagnostics vs Consumer electronics, IoT hardware products).
Verify all details directly with each service provider before making a decision.