Dojo Five vs Sigma Design: full comparison for 2026
Quick verdict
Dojo Five (4.5/5) edges ahead of Sigma Design (4.2/5) overall. Dojo Five is the better choice for FDA-ready firmware for connected medical devices and diagnostics. Sigma Design is the stronger option for multi-discipline RFPs needing industrial design and firmware at large scale. The right choice depends on your project size, budget, and required tech stack.
Dojo Five vs Sigma Design: head-to-head summary
| Criterion | Dojo Five | Sigma Design |
|---|---|---|
| Founded | 2018 | 1994 |
| HQ | Saint Paul, MN, USA | Camas, WA, USA |
| Team size | 26 | 283 |
| Rating | 4.5 / 5 | 4.2 / 5 |
| Primary differentiator | Firmware delivery scoped exclusively around FDA-regulated medical device and diagnostics programs, not a general embedded practice | 283-person product design and engineering firm spanning industrial design, mechanical engineering, and firmware across five continents |
| Pricing model | Project-based firmware engagements for medical device programs | Project-based product design and 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 | Consumer electronics, Industrial, Medical devices |
Dojo Five vs Sigma Design: 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.
Sigma Design
Sigma Design (operating as SIGMADESIGN) was established in 1994 in Portland, Oregon and is now headquartered in Camas, Washington with approximately 283 employees across five continents. Its stated scope covers mechanical design and engineering, industrial design, testing, onsite contracting, and software and firmware engineering, positioning itself as a full product design and engineering partner rather than a firmware-only vendor. For an RFP that groups industrial design, mechanical engineering, and firmware into one deliverable, Sigma Design's breadth and headcount give it more parallel-program capacity than most boutique bidders on this list.
Services and capabilities: Dojo Five vs Sigma Design
| Capability | Dojo Five | Sigma Design |
|---|---|---|
| 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 Sigma Design
| Framework / platform | Dojo Five | Sigma Design |
|---|---|---|
| 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 Sigma Design
| Criterion | Dojo Five | Sigma Design |
|---|---|---|
| Minimum engagement | Not published | Not published |
| Engagement models | Project-based firmware development | Project-based product design and engineering |
| Rate transparency | Not public | Not public |
| Price tier | Mid-market | Mid-market |
Target audience comparison: Dojo Five vs Sigma Design
| Dimension | Dojo Five | Sigma Design |
|---|---|---|
| Best company size | Startup to mid-market | Startup to mid-market |
| Best industries | Medical devices, Diagnostics | Consumer electronics, Industrial, Medical devices |
| 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 product design RFP bundling industrial design, mechanical engineering, and firmware, Onsite contracting engagement embedding firmware engineers with an in-house team |
| Typical project type | Project-based firmware development | Project-based product design and engineering |
Dojo Five vs Sigma Design: 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 |
| Sigma Design | |
|---|---|
| + | 283 employees across five continents give substantially more parallel-program capacity than most boutique firms on this list |
| + | 31 years of operating history under continuous product-design focus |
| + | Industrial design and mechanical engineering sit alongside firmware, matching how a full product RFP is often scoped |
| + | Onsite contracting option can place engineers directly with a client team for close-coordination programs |
| - | Firmware is one discipline inside a much broader product-design practice, not the firm's primary specialty |
| - | No published pricing or minimum engagement figure |
| - | Public case studies specific to firmware-only engagements, versus its broader product design portfolio, are limited |
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 Sigma Design?
A typical fit: full product design RFP bundling industrial design, mechanical engineering, and firmware.
283-person product design and engineering firm spanning industrial design, mechanical engineering, and firmware across five continents. Minimum engagement is not publicly disclosed. Works best with clients in Consumer electronics, Industrial, Medical devices.
Decision matrix: Dojo Five vs Sigma Design
| 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 Sigma Design (Not published) |
| You need specialist depth in a specific vertical | Sigma Design |
| 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 Sigma Design
| Use case | Dojo Five fit | Sigma Design 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 product design RFP bundling industrial design, mechanical engineering, and firmware | Limited | Strong | Sigma Design |
| Onsite contracting engagement embedding firmware engineers with an in-house team | Limited | Strong | Sigma Design |
| Fixed-price build | Limited | Limited | Both equally |
| Staff augmentation | Limited | Limited | Both equally |
Verdict: Dojo Five vs Sigma Design
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.
Sigma Design (4.2/5) is worth a look if you need onsite contracting engagement embedding firmware engineers with an in-house team. If your situation matches that, Sigma Design is a competitive option.
Related comparisons
Dojo Five vs Sigma Design FAQ
Is Dojo Five better than Sigma Design?
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. Sigma Design's strongest advantage: 283 employees across five continents give substantially more parallel-program capacity than most boutique firms on this list.
How do Dojo Five and Sigma Design differ in pricing?
Dojo Five uses project-based firmware engagements for medical device programs pricing. Sigma Design uses project-based product design and 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 Sigma Design?
Sigma Design 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 Sigma Design?
Dojo Five's primary differentiator is: firmware delivery scoped exclusively around FDA-regulated medical device and diagnostics programs, not a general embedded practice. Sigma Design's primary differentiator is: 283-person product design and engineering firm spanning industrial design, mechanical engineering, and firmware across five continents. They also differ in team size (26 vs 283), minimum engagement (Not published vs Not published), and primary industries served (Medical devices, Diagnostics vs Consumer electronics, Industrial).
Verify all details directly with each service provider before making a decision.