Barr Group vs NOVO Engineering: full comparison for 2026
Quick verdict
Barr Group (4.5/5) edges ahead of NOVO Engineering (4.1/5) overall. Barr Group is the better choice for teams wanting engineers whose published technical work they can vet before hiring. NOVO Engineering is the stronger option for teams wanting engineers with an unusually high average tenure across disciplines. The right choice depends on your project size, budget, and required tech stack.
Barr Group vs NOVO Engineering: head-to-head summary
| Criterion | Barr Group | NOVO Engineering |
|---|---|---|
| Founded | 2012 | 2004 |
| HQ | Gaithersburg, MD, USA | Vista, CA, USA |
| Team size | 51–200 | 48–60 |
| Rating | 4.5 / 5 | 4.1 / 5 |
| Primary differentiator | Led by Michael Barr, a recognized embedded software author and former magazine editor-in-chief, giving prospective clients a public body of work to evaluate first | Engineering team averaging 16 years of experience per engineer, a specific and checkable seniority claim |
| Pricing model | Consulting engagements, training courses, expert-witness services | Fixed-scope product engineering engagements |
| Min. engagement | Not published | Not published |
| Primary tech stack | C, C++, RTOS Architecture Review | C, C++, Embedded Systems Programming |
| Industries served | Medical devices, Industrial, Consumer electronics, Legal / litigation support | Medical devices, Biotech, Printing technology, Commercial products |
Barr Group vs NOVO Engineering: overview
Barr Group
Barr Group was founded in 2012 and is headquartered in Gaithersburg, Maryland, with a team in the 51 to 200 employee range. Led by CTO Michael Barr, a former editor-in-chief of Embedded Systems Design magazine and author of multiple embedded software books, the firm's identity centers on training, firmware process and architecture work, and legal technical expert-witness services rather than volume staffing. For an engineering leader deciding who to bring onto a team, working alongside people whose technical writing they've likely already read is a different kind of hiring signal than a generic vendor profile.
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. That average-tenure figure is a specific, checkable claim a hiring buyer can weigh directly: it means the typical engineer assigned to a project has already spent over a decade and a half solving comparable problems. Systems engineering scope means firmware roles work alongside mechanical and electrical engineers on the same team, not in a separate silo.
Services and capabilities: Barr Group vs NOVO Engineering
| Capability | Barr Group | NOVO Engineering |
|---|---|---|
| Firmware development | ✓ | ✓ |
| RTOS development | ✗ | ✗ |
| Hardware co-design | ✗ | ✓ |
| Embedded GUI development | ✗ | ✗ |
| Medical device firmware | ✗ | ✓ |
| Functional safety | ✗ | ✗ |
| Technical training | ✓ | ✗ |
| Expert-witness services | ✓ | ✗ |
| Staff augmentation | ✗ | ✗ |
Tech stack comparison: Barr Group vs NOVO Engineering
| Framework / platform | Barr Group | NOVO Engineering |
|---|---|---|
| C | ✓ | ✓ |
| C++ | ✓ | ✓ |
| FreeRTOS | N/A | N/A |
| Zephyr | N/A | N/A |
| FPGA | N/A | N/A |
| Embedded Linux | N/A | N/A |
| LVGL | N/A | N/A |
| AWS IoT | N/A | N/A |
| ARM Cortex-M | N/A | N/A |
Pricing comparison: Barr Group vs NOVO Engineering
| Criterion | Barr Group | NOVO Engineering |
|---|---|---|
| Minimum engagement | Not published | Not published |
| Engagement models | Firmware process & architecture consulting, Training, Expert-witness services | Fixed-scope product engineering, Pre-production manufacturing support |
| Rate transparency | Not public | Not public |
| Price tier | Mid-market | Mid-market |
Target audience comparison: Barr Group vs NOVO Engineering
| Dimension | Barr Group | NOVO Engineering |
|---|---|---|
| Best company size | Startup to mid-market | Startup to mid-market |
| Best industries | Medical devices, Industrial, Consumer electronics | Medical devices, Biotech, Printing technology |
| Best use cases | Bringing in a recognized technical authority to review an in-house team's architecture decisions, Firmware process training for engineers already on staff | Hiring a multi-discipline team spanning mechanical, electrical, and firmware, Biotech instrumentation development needing senior, cross-discipline engineers |
| Typical project type | Firmware process & architecture consulting | Fixed-scope product engineering |
Barr Group vs NOVO Engineering: pros and cons
| Barr Group | |
|---|---|
| + | Michael Barr's public technical writing and books give a prospective client a way to evaluate the team's judgment before ever making contact |
| + | Training as a core business line means the firm's engineers are practiced at explaining their reasoning, not just doing the work silently |
| + | 13 years of operating history built specifically around expert technical judgment rather than headcount growth |
| + | 51 to 200 employees give real bench depth for a firm this specialized |
| - | Volume firmware development capacity is not the firm's stated focus, so a large parallel build program may need a second team |
| - | No published consulting rate or minimum engagement figure |
| - | Expert-witness work is a distinct practice from product engineering; confirm which team a specific inquiry reaches |
| NOVO Engineering | |
|---|---|
| + | Engineering team averages 16 years of experience per engineer, a specific, checkable seniority claim |
| + | Systems engineering scope puts firmware engineers on the same team as mechanical and electrical staff, not a separate silo |
| + | Two US locations near San Diego and Minneapolis give onsite coverage options |
| + | 21 years of operating history in medical device and biotech instrumentation work |
| - | 48 to 60 engineers caps how many large concurrent programs the team can staff at once |
| - | No published pricing or minimum engagement figure |
| - | Firmware is one discipline inside a broader systems-engineering team, not a standalone firmware-only group |
Who should choose Barr Group?
A typical fit: bringing in a recognized technical authority to review an in-house team's architecture decisions.
Led by Michael Barr, a recognized embedded software author and former magazine editor-in-chief, giving prospective clients a public body of work to evaluate first. Minimum engagement is not publicly disclosed. Works best with clients in Medical devices, Industrial, Consumer electronics, Legal / litigation support.
Who should choose NOVO Engineering?
A typical fit: hiring a multi-discipline team spanning mechanical, electrical, and firmware.
Engineering team averaging 16 years of experience per engineer, a specific and checkable seniority claim. Minimum engagement is not publicly disclosed. Works best with clients in Medical devices, Biotech, Printing technology, Commercial products.
Decision matrix: Barr Group 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: Barr Group (Not published) vs NOVO Engineering (Not published) |
| You need specialist depth in a specific vertical | Barr Group |
| You need staff augmentation or team extension | Neither; consider alternatives that offer staff aug |
| You need consulting before committing to a build | Barr Group |
Use case fit: Barr Group vs NOVO Engineering
| Use case | Barr Group fit | NOVO Engineering fit | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bringing in a recognized technical authority to review an in-house team's architecture decisions | Strong | Limited | Barr Group |
| Firmware process training for engineers already on staff | Strong | Strong | Both equally |
| Hiring a multi-discipline team spanning mechanical, electrical, and firmware | Limited | Strong | NOVO Engineering |
| Biotech instrumentation development needing senior, cross-discipline engineers | Limited | Strong | NOVO Engineering |
| Fixed-price build | Limited | Limited | Both equally |
| Staff augmentation | Strong | Limited | Barr Group |
Verdict: Barr Group vs NOVO Engineering
Barr Group (4.5/5) is the stronger overall choice for most Embedded Firmware Development projects. Led by Michael Barr, a recognized embedded software author and former magazine editor-in-chief, giving prospective clients a public body of work to evaluate first.
NOVO Engineering (4.1/5) is worth a look if you need biotech instrumentation development needing senior, cross-discipline engineers. If your situation matches that, NOVO Engineering is a competitive option.
Related comparisons
Barr Group vs NOVO Engineering FAQ
Is Barr Group better than NOVO Engineering?
Barr Group (4.5/5) scores higher overall, but "better" depends on your use case. Barr Group's strongest advantage: michael Barr's public technical writing and books give a prospective client a way to evaluate the team's judgment before ever making contact. NOVO Engineering's strongest advantage: engineering team averages 16 years of experience per engineer, a specific, checkable seniority claim.
How do Barr Group and NOVO Engineering differ in pricing?
Barr Group uses consulting engagements, training courses, expert-witness services 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: Barr Group or NOVO Engineering?
Barr Group is the larger team and typically the better enterprise-scale choice. For very large programmes, verify team size and compliance coverage directly with each developer before shortlisting.
What are the main differences between Barr Group and NOVO Engineering?
Barr Group's primary differentiator is: led by Michael Barr, a recognized embedded software author and former magazine editor-in-chief, giving prospective clients a public body of work to evaluate first. NOVO Engineering's primary differentiator is: engineering team averaging 16 years of experience per engineer, a specific and checkable seniority claim. They also differ in team size (51–200 vs 48–60), minimum engagement (Not published vs Not published), and primary industries served (Medical devices, Industrial vs Medical devices, Biotech).
Verify all details directly with each developer before making a decision.