Dojo Five vs WebbyLab: full comparison for 2026
Quick verdict
Dojo Five (4.5/5) edges ahead of WebbyLab (4.2/5) overall. Dojo Five is the better choice for FDA-ready firmware for connected medical devices and diagnostics. WebbyLab is the stronger option for RFPs bundling hardware selection, firmware, and the connected application layer. The right choice depends on your project size, budget, and required tech stack.
Dojo Five vs WebbyLab: head-to-head summary
| Criterion | Dojo Five | WebbyLab |
|---|---|---|
| Founded | 2018 | 2011 |
| HQ | Saint Paul, MN, USA | Kyiv, Ukraine (also London, UK) |
| Team size | 26 | 120+ |
| 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 | Full-cycle delivery from hardware selection through firmware and the connected application layer under one team |
| Pricing model | Project-based firmware engagements for medical device programs | Project-based full-cycle IoT engagements |
| Min. engagement | Not published | Not published |
| Primary tech stack | C, C++, Medical Device Firmware Standards | C, C++, IoT Connectivity Protocols |
| Industries served | Medical devices, Diagnostics | IoT hardware products, Fintech, E-commerce |
Dojo Five vs WebbyLab: 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.
WebbyLab
WebbyLab was founded in 2011 by Anton Morozov and Viktor Turskyi and operates from Kyiv and London with more than 120 engineers across hardware, firmware, and software disciplines. The firm's stated full-cycle scope runs from hardware selection through firmware development and the cloud or mobile application layer, with IoT and embedded systems named as a core specialty and Fortune 500 clients cited among its customer base. That full-cycle framing fits an RFP that bundles the connected-device backend into the same scope as the firmware itself.
Services and capabilities: Dojo Five vs WebbyLab
| Capability | Dojo Five | WebbyLab |
|---|---|---|
| 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 WebbyLab
| Framework / platform | Dojo Five | WebbyLab |
|---|---|---|
| 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 WebbyLab
| Criterion | Dojo Five | WebbyLab |
|---|---|---|
| Minimum engagement | Not published | Not published |
| Engagement models | Project-based firmware development | Project-based full-cycle development |
| Rate transparency | Not public | Not public |
| Price tier | Mid-market | Mid-market |
Target audience comparison: Dojo Five vs WebbyLab
| Dimension | Dojo Five | WebbyLab |
|---|---|---|
| Best company size | Startup to mid-market | Startup to mid-market |
| Best industries | Medical devices, Diagnostics | IoT hardware products, Fintech, E-commerce |
| 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 IoT RFP from hardware selection through firmware and its companion mobile app, Embedded firmware program requiring cloud integration under one vendor |
| Typical project type | Project-based firmware development | Project-based full-cycle development |
Dojo Five vs WebbyLab: 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 |
| WebbyLab | |
|---|---|
| + | Full-cycle scope from hardware selection through the connected application layer reduces the vendor count an RFP needs to coordinate |
| + | 120-plus engineers gives more concurrent-program capacity than most boutique competing bidders |
| + | Fortune 500 client relationships indicate prior experience with large-organization procurement processes |
| + | 14 years of operating history under its original two founders |
| - | IoT and embedded is one specialty alongside fintech and e-commerce work, not the firm's sole focus |
| - | Specific named case studies with verifiable project details are limited in public materials |
| - | 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 WebbyLab?
A typical fit: full-cycle IoT RFP from hardware selection through firmware and its companion mobile app.
Full-cycle delivery from hardware selection through firmware and the connected application layer under one team. Minimum engagement is not publicly disclosed. Works best with clients in IoT hardware products, Fintech, E-commerce.
Decision matrix: Dojo Five vs WebbyLab
| 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 WebbyLab (Not published) |
| You need specialist depth in a specific vertical | WebbyLab |
| 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 WebbyLab
| Use case | Dojo Five fit | WebbyLab 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 IoT RFP from hardware selection through firmware and its companion mobile app | Limited | Strong | WebbyLab |
| Embedded firmware program requiring cloud integration under one vendor | Limited | Strong | WebbyLab |
| Fixed-price build | Limited | Limited | Both equally |
| Staff augmentation | Limited | Limited | Both equally |
Verdict: Dojo Five vs WebbyLab
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.
WebbyLab (4.2/5) is worth a look if you need embedded firmware program requiring cloud integration under one vendor. If your situation matches that, WebbyLab is a competitive option.
Related comparisons
Dojo Five vs WebbyLab FAQ
Is Dojo Five better than WebbyLab?
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. WebbyLab's strongest advantage: full-cycle scope from hardware selection through the connected application layer reduces the vendor count an RFP needs to coordinate.
How do Dojo Five and WebbyLab differ in pricing?
Dojo Five uses project-based firmware engagements for medical device programs pricing. WebbyLab uses project-based full-cycle iot 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 WebbyLab?
WebbyLab 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 WebbyLab?
Dojo Five's primary differentiator is: firmware delivery scoped exclusively around FDA-regulated medical device and diagnostics programs, not a general embedded practice. WebbyLab's primary differentiator is: full-cycle delivery from hardware selection through firmware and the connected application layer under one team. They also differ in team size (26 vs 120+), minimum engagement (Not published vs Not published), and primary industries served (Medical devices, Diagnostics vs IoT hardware products, Fintech).
Verify all details directly with each service provider before making a decision.