NOVO Engineering vs WebbyLab: full comparison for 2026
Quick verdict
NOVO Engineering (4.3/5) edges ahead of WebbyLab (4.2/5) overall. NOVO Engineering is the better choice for multi-discipline RFPs spanning mechanical, electrical, and firmware. 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.
NOVO Engineering vs WebbyLab: head-to-head summary
| Criterion | NOVO Engineering | WebbyLab |
|---|---|---|
| Founded | 2004 | 2011 |
| HQ | Vista, CA, USA | Kyiv, Ukraine (also London, UK) |
| Team size | 48–60 | 120+ |
| Rating | 4.3 / 5 | 4.2 / 5 |
| Primary differentiator | Systems-engineering scope built for programs that bundle mechanical, electrical, and firmware requirements into one vendor relationship | Full-cycle delivery from hardware selection through firmware and the connected application layer under one team |
| Pricing model | Fixed-scope product engineering engagements | Project-based full-cycle IoT engagements |
| Min. engagement | Not published | Not published |
| Primary tech stack | C, C++, Embedded Systems Programming | C, C++, IoT Connectivity Protocols |
| Industries served | Medical devices, Biotech, Printing technology, Commercial products | IoT hardware products, Fintech, E-commerce |
NOVO Engineering vs WebbyLab: overview
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.
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: NOVO Engineering vs WebbyLab
| Capability | NOVO Engineering | 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: NOVO Engineering vs WebbyLab
| Framework / platform | NOVO Engineering | 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: NOVO Engineering vs WebbyLab
| Criterion | NOVO Engineering | WebbyLab |
|---|---|---|
| Minimum engagement | Not published | Not published |
| Engagement models | Fixed-scope product engineering, Pre-production manufacturing support | Project-based full-cycle development |
| Rate transparency | Not public | Not public |
| Price tier | Mid-market | Mid-market |
Target audience comparison: NOVO Engineering vs WebbyLab
| Dimension | NOVO Engineering | WebbyLab |
|---|---|---|
| Best company size | Startup to mid-market | Startup to mid-market |
| Best industries | Medical devices, Biotech, Printing technology | IoT hardware products, Fintech, E-commerce |
| Best use cases | Multi-discipline RFP bundling mechanical, electrical, and firmware requirements, Biotech instrumentation program requiring custom automation alongside firmware | 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 | Fixed-scope product engineering | Project-based full-cycle development |
NOVO Engineering vs WebbyLab: pros and cons
| 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 |
| 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 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.
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: NOVO Engineering vs WebbyLab
| 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: NOVO Engineering (Not published) vs WebbyLab (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 | Both may offer discovery engagements |
Use case fit: NOVO Engineering vs WebbyLab
| Use case | NOVO Engineering fit | WebbyLab fit | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Multi-discipline RFP bundling mechanical, electrical, and firmware requirements | Strong | Limited | NOVO Engineering |
| Biotech instrumentation program requiring custom automation alongside firmware | Strong | Limited | NOVO Engineering |
| 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: NOVO Engineering vs WebbyLab
NOVO Engineering (4.3/5) is the stronger overall choice for most Embedded Firmware projects. Systems-engineering scope built for programs that bundle mechanical, electrical, and firmware requirements into one vendor relationship.
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
NOVO Engineering vs WebbyLab FAQ
Is NOVO Engineering better than WebbyLab?
NOVO Engineering (4.3/5) scores higher overall, but "better" depends on your use case. NOVO Engineering's strongest advantage: engineering team averages 16 years of experience per engineer, a strong bench-depth signal for a technical evaluation. 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 NOVO Engineering and WebbyLab differ in pricing?
NOVO Engineering uses fixed-scope product engineering engagements 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: NOVO Engineering or WebbyLab?
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 NOVO Engineering and WebbyLab?
NOVO Engineering's primary differentiator is: systems-engineering scope built for programs that bundle mechanical, electrical, and firmware requirements into one vendor relationship. 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 (48–60 vs 120+), minimum engagement (Not published vs Not published), and primary industries served (Medical devices, Biotech vs IoT hardware products, Fintech).
Verify all details directly with each service provider before making a decision.