Dojo Five vs NOVO Engineering: full comparison for 2026
Quick verdict
Dojo Five (4.5/5) edges ahead of NOVO Engineering (4.3/5) overall. Dojo Five is the better choice for FDA-ready firmware for connected medical devices and diagnostics. NOVO Engineering is the stronger option for multi-discipline RFPs spanning mechanical, electrical, and firmware. The right choice depends on your project size, budget, and required tech stack.
Dojo Five vs NOVO Engineering: head-to-head summary
| Criterion | Dojo Five | NOVO Engineering |
|---|---|---|
| Founded | 2018 | 2004 |
| HQ | Saint Paul, MN, USA | Vista, CA, USA |
| Team size | 26 | 48–60 |
| Rating | 4.5 / 5 | 4.3 / 5 |
| Primary differentiator | Firmware delivery scoped exclusively around FDA-regulated medical device and diagnostics programs, not a general embedded practice | Systems-engineering scope built for programs that bundle mechanical, electrical, and firmware requirements into one vendor relationship |
| Pricing model | Project-based firmware engagements for medical device programs | Fixed-scope product engineering engagements |
| Min. engagement | Not published | Not published |
| Primary tech stack | C, C++, Medical Device Firmware Standards | C, C++, Embedded Systems Programming |
| Industries served | Medical devices, Diagnostics | Medical devices, Biotech, Printing technology, Commercial products |
Dojo Five vs NOVO 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.
NOVO Engineering
NOVO Engineering was founded in 2004 and is headquartered in Vista, California near San Diego, with a second location near Minneapolis and a team reported between 48 and 60 engineers averaging 16 years of experience each. The firm's engagement scope covers hardware and software development, systems engineering, custom automation, and pre-production manufacturing support across medical devices, biotech instrumentation, and commercial products. For an RFP that bundles mechanical, electrical, and firmware requirements into one program, NOVO's systems-engineering framing is built specifically for that kind of multi-discipline scope.
Services and capabilities: Dojo Five vs NOVO Engineering
| Capability | Dojo Five | NOVO 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 NOVO Engineering
| Framework / platform | Dojo Five | NOVO Engineering |
|---|---|---|
| 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 NOVO Engineering
| Criterion | Dojo Five | NOVO Engineering |
|---|---|---|
| Minimum engagement | Not published | Not published |
| Engagement models | Project-based firmware development | Fixed-scope product engineering, Pre-production manufacturing support |
| Rate transparency | Not public | Not public |
| Price tier | Mid-market | Mid-market |
Target audience comparison: Dojo Five vs NOVO Engineering
| Dimension | Dojo Five | NOVO Engineering |
|---|---|---|
| Best company size | Startup to mid-market | Startup to mid-market |
| Best industries | Medical devices, Diagnostics | Medical devices, Biotech, Printing technology |
| 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 | Multi-discipline RFP bundling mechanical, electrical, and firmware requirements, Biotech instrumentation program requiring custom automation alongside firmware |
| Typical project type | Project-based firmware development | Fixed-scope product engineering |
Dojo Five vs NOVO 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 |
| NOVO Engineering | |
|---|---|
| + | Engineering team averages 16 years of experience per engineer, a strong bench-depth signal for a technical evaluation |
| + | Systems engineering scope covers mechanical, electrical, and firmware together, matching how many hardware RFPs are actually structured |
| + | Two US locations near San Diego and Minneapolis give onsite coverage options for a geographically constrained RFP |
| + | Pre-production manufacturing support extends past firmware delivery into getting a product built |
| - | 48 to 60 engineers caps how many large concurrent RFP-scale programs the firm can run simultaneously |
| - | No published pricing or minimum engagement figure |
| - | Firmware is one discipline inside a broader systems-engineering practice, not a standalone firmware specialist brand |
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 NOVO Engineering?
A typical fit: multi-discipline RFP bundling mechanical, electrical, and firmware requirements.
Systems-engineering scope built for programs that bundle mechanical, electrical, and firmware requirements into one vendor relationship. Minimum engagement is not publicly disclosed. Works best with clients in Medical devices, Biotech, Printing technology, Commercial products.
Decision matrix: Dojo Five vs NOVO Engineering
| Your situation | Recommended choice |
|---|---|
| You need full-ownership delivery on a defined project scope | NOVO Engineering |
| 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 NOVO Engineering (Not published) |
| You need specialist depth in a specific vertical | NOVO 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 NOVO Engineering
| Use case | Dojo Five fit | NOVO 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 |
| Multi-discipline RFP bundling mechanical, electrical, and firmware requirements | Limited | Strong | NOVO Engineering |
| Biotech instrumentation program requiring custom automation alongside firmware | Limited | Strong | NOVO Engineering |
| Fixed-price build | Limited | Limited | Both equally |
| Staff augmentation | Limited | Limited | Both equally |
Verdict: Dojo Five vs NOVO 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.
NOVO Engineering (4.3/5) is worth a look if you need biotech instrumentation program requiring custom automation alongside firmware. If your situation matches that, NOVO Engineering is a competitive option.
Related comparisons
Dojo Five vs NOVO Engineering FAQ
Is Dojo Five better than NOVO 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. NOVO Engineering's strongest advantage: engineering team averages 16 years of experience per engineer, a strong bench-depth signal for a technical evaluation.
How do Dojo Five and NOVO Engineering differ in pricing?
Dojo Five uses project-based firmware engagements for medical device programs pricing. NOVO Engineering uses fixed-scope product 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 NOVO Engineering?
NOVO 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 NOVO Engineering?
Dojo Five's primary differentiator is: firmware delivery scoped exclusively around FDA-regulated medical device and diagnostics programs, not a general embedded practice. NOVO Engineering's primary differentiator is: systems-engineering scope built for programs that bundle mechanical, electrical, and firmware requirements into one vendor relationship. They also differ in team size (26 vs 48–60), minimum engagement (Not published vs Not published), and primary industries served (Medical devices, Diagnostics vs Medical devices, Biotech).
Verify all details directly with each service provider before making a decision.