CMD MedTech vs EES: full comparison for 2026
Quick verdict
CMD MedTech (4.0/5) edges ahead of EES (3.8/5) overall. CMD MedTech is the better choice for small teams needing close, senior-level medical device engineering with supplier-diversity credentials. EES is the stronger option for teams deliberately avoiding a large delivery organization in favor of senior-led staff. The right choice depends on your project size, budget, and required tech stack.
CMD MedTech vs EES: head-to-head summary
| Criterion | CMD MedTech | EES |
|---|---|---|
| Founded | 2016 | 2012 |
| HQ | Columbus, OH, USA | Tempe / Chandler, AZ, USA |
| Team size | 13 | 3–50 |
| Rating | 4.0 / 5 | 3.8 / 5 |
| Primary differentiator | Woman-owned small business built specifically around medical device systems, software, and regulatory support | Explicitly positions itself as senior-led, keeping the team small by design rather than as a growth-stage limitation |
| Pricing model | Project-based medical device engineering engagements | Contract engineering engagements |
| Min. engagement | Not published | Not published |
| Primary tech stack | C, C++, Medical Device Software Standards | C, C++, Industrial Embedded Systems |
| Industries served | Medical devices | Industrial |
CMD MedTech vs EES: overview
CMD MedTech
CMD MedTech was founded in 2016 and is headquartered in Columbus, Ohio, with roughly 13 employees as of mid-2025. The firm specializes entirely in medical device development, covering systems engineering, software and firmware, and regulatory and quality support. Its status as a woman-owned small business can matter to a hiring buyer with supplier-diversity requirements, and the small team structure means a client works directly with the senior engineers doing the work rather than being routed through a larger delivery organization.
EES
Embedded Engineering Solutions (EES) was launched in 2012 and is based in Tempe, Arizona, with reported headcount varying across sources from roughly 3 to 50 employees, most consistently described as a small, senior-led firm. The company specializes in contract firmware, embedded systems, and hardware design engineering for the industrial sector, and its own positioning leans on being senior-led rather than layered with junior staff. For a hiring buyer specifically avoiding a large delivery organization, that's the stated value proposition, not an incidental trait.
Services and capabilities: CMD MedTech vs EES
| Capability | CMD MedTech | EES |
|---|---|---|
| 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: CMD MedTech vs EES
| Framework / platform | CMD MedTech | EES |
|---|---|---|
| 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: CMD MedTech vs EES
| Criterion | CMD MedTech | EES |
|---|---|---|
| Minimum engagement | Not published | Not published |
| Engagement models | Project-based engineering with regulatory support | Contract firmware and hardware engineering |
| Rate transparency | Not public | Not public |
| Price tier | Mid-market | Mid-market |
Target audience comparison: CMD MedTech vs EES
| Dimension | CMD MedTech | EES |
|---|---|---|
| Best company size | Startup to mid-market | Startup to mid-market |
| Best industries | Medical devices | Industrial |
| Best use cases | Hiring a small, senior medical device engineering team with regulatory expertise, Systems and firmware engineering for a medical device FDA submission | Hiring a deliberately small, senior-led team for an industrial firmware program, Combined hardware and firmware engineering without separate specialist vendors |
| Typical project type | Project-based engineering with regulatory support | Contract firmware and hardware engineering |
CMD MedTech vs EES: pros and cons
| CMD MedTech | |
|---|---|
| + | Medical device development is the firm's sole focus, not one vertical among several |
| + | Woman-owned small business status can satisfy supplier-diversity requirements in enterprise and government hiring |
| + | Regulatory and quality support is built into the delivery process rather than treated as a separate service |
| + | Small team size gives direct access to senior engineers rather than being routed through account layers |
| - | 13 employees is one of the smallest teams on this list, which caps how many concurrent programs the firm can run |
| - | 9 years of operating history is shorter than several competitors with 20-plus years in medical device work |
| - | No published pricing or minimum engagement figure |
| EES | |
|---|---|
| + | Explicit senior-led positioning means the small team size is a deliberate choice, not just a growth-stage limitation |
| + | 13 years of operating history as a contract engineering firm for the industrial sector |
| + | Combines firmware, embedded systems, and hardware design in one team, covering multiple disciplines without separate specialist hires |
| + | Small size means a client's engagement represents a meaningful share of the firm's total capacity |
| - | Reported employee counts vary widely across sources, from roughly 3 to 50, worth confirming current headcount directly |
| - | Small team size caps capacity for a large or multi-workstream program |
| - | No published pricing or minimum engagement figure |
Who should choose CMD MedTech?
A typical fit: hiring a small, senior medical device engineering team with regulatory expertise.
Woman-owned small business built specifically around medical device systems, software, and regulatory support. Minimum engagement is not publicly disclosed. Works best with clients in Medical devices.
Who should choose EES?
A typical fit: hiring a deliberately small, senior-led team for an industrial firmware program.
Explicitly positions itself as senior-led, keeping the team small by design rather than as a growth-stage limitation. Minimum engagement is not publicly disclosed. Works best with clients in Industrial.
Decision matrix: CMD MedTech vs EES
| 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: CMD MedTech (Not published) vs EES (Not published) |
| You need specialist depth in a specific vertical | CMD MedTech |
| You need staff augmentation or team extension | Neither; consider alternatives that offer staff aug |
| You need consulting before committing to a build | CMD MedTech |
Use case fit: CMD MedTech vs EES
| Use case | CMD MedTech fit | EES fit | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hiring a small, senior medical device engineering team with regulatory expertise | Strong | Strong | Both equally |
| Systems and firmware engineering for a medical device FDA submission | Strong | Limited | CMD MedTech |
| Hiring a deliberately small, senior-led team for an industrial firmware program | Strong | Strong | Both equally |
| Combined hardware and firmware engineering without separate specialist vendors | Limited | Strong | EES |
| Fixed-price build | Limited | Limited | Both equally |
| Staff augmentation | Limited | Limited | Both equally |
Verdict: CMD MedTech vs EES
CMD MedTech (4.0/5) is the stronger overall choice for most Embedded Firmware Development projects. Woman-owned small business built specifically around medical device systems, software, and regulatory support.
EES (3.8/5) is worth a look if you need combined hardware and firmware engineering without separate specialist vendors. If your situation matches that, EES is a competitive option.
Related comparisons
CMD MedTech vs EES FAQ
Is CMD MedTech better than EES?
CMD MedTech (4.0/5) scores higher overall, but "better" depends on your use case. CMD MedTech's strongest advantage: medical device development is the firm's sole focus, not one vertical among several. EES's strongest advantage: explicit senior-led positioning means the small team size is a deliberate choice, not just a growth-stage limitation.
How do CMD MedTech and EES differ in pricing?
CMD MedTech uses project-based medical device engineering engagements pricing. EES uses contract engineering engagements pricing. Neither firm publishes a full rate card; a discovery call is required for project-specific quotes.
Which is better for enterprise: CMD MedTech or EES?
EES 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 CMD MedTech and EES?
CMD MedTech's primary differentiator is: woman-owned small business built specifically around medical device systems, software, and regulatory support. EES's primary differentiator is: explicitly positions itself as senior-led, keeping the team small by design rather than as a growth-stage limitation. They also differ in team size (13 vs 3–50), minimum engagement (Not published vs Not published), and primary industries served (Medical devices vs Industrial).
Verify all details directly with each developer before making a decision.