Dojo Five vs EES: full comparison for 2026
Quick verdict
Dojo Five (4.5/5) edges ahead of EES (3.8/5) overall. Dojo Five is the better choice for teams that want a remote-first firmware partner with an explicit engineering culture. 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.
Dojo Five vs EES: head-to-head summary
| Criterion | Dojo Five | EES |
|---|---|---|
| Founded | 2018 | 2012 |
| HQ | Saint Paul, MN, USA | Tempe / Chandler, AZ, USA |
| Team size | 26 | 3–50 |
| Rating | 4.5 / 5 | 3.8 / 5 |
| Primary differentiator | Stated "modern firmware" culture with explicit values (humble confidence, 40-hour weeks) built into how the team operates day to day | Explicitly positions itself as senior-led, keeping the team small by design rather than as a growth-stage limitation |
| Pricing model | Project-based firmware engagements | Contract engineering engagements |
| Min. engagement | Not published | Not published |
| Primary tech stack | C, C++, Python | C, C++, Industrial Embedded Systems |
| Industries served | Medical devices, Diagnostics, Connected devices | Industrial |
Dojo Five vs EES: overview
Dojo Five
Dojo Five was founded in 2018 and is headquartered in Saint Paul, Minnesota with a team of 26 engineers. The company explicitly builds its identity around "modern firmware", the tools, techniques, and culture behind a better day-to-day experience building embedded devices, and operates remote-first with stated values including always learning, humble confidence, and pushing boundaries while protecting a 40-hour work week. For a buyer weighing team culture and engineer retention as part of a long-term hiring decision, that explicit values statement is unusually direct for a firmware company.
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: Dojo Five vs EES
| Capability | Dojo Five | 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: Dojo Five vs EES
| Framework / platform | Dojo Five | EES |
|---|---|---|
| C | ✓ | ✓ |
| C++ | ✓ | ✓ |
| FreeRTOS | N/A | N/A |
| Zephyr | N/A | N/A |
| FPGA | N/A | N/A |
| Embedded Linux | ✓ | N/A |
| LVGL | N/A | N/A |
| AWS IoT | N/A | N/A |
| ARM Cortex-M | N/A | N/A |
Pricing comparison: Dojo Five vs EES
| Criterion | Dojo Five | EES |
|---|---|---|
| Minimum engagement | Not published | Not published |
| Engagement models | Project-based firmware development | Contract firmware and hardware engineering |
| Rate transparency | Not public | Not public |
| Price tier | Mid-market | Mid-market |
Target audience comparison: Dojo Five vs EES
| Dimension | Dojo Five | EES |
|---|---|---|
| Best company size | Startup to mid-market | Startup to mid-market |
| Best industries | Medical devices, Diagnostics, Connected devices | Industrial |
| Best use cases | Embedded Linux firmware development needing a dedicated, remote-first team, Production-ready firmware handoff for a connected medical device | 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 firmware development | Contract firmware and hardware engineering |
Dojo Five vs EES: pros and cons
| Dojo Five | |
|---|---|
| + | Explicit, published team culture (humble confidence, always deliver, 40-hour weeks) gives a hiring buyer real signal about who they'd be working with |
| + | Remote-first structure from the start, not a pandemic-era retrofit, suggests mature distributed-team practices |
| + | 7 years of operating history focused entirely on firmware, with a dedicated Embedded Linux team |
| + | Small team size (26) means a client works with senior engineers directly rather than being routed through account layers |
| - | 26 engineers caps concurrent capacity for a client needing several parallel workstreams |
| - | Its stated focus on connected medical devices and diagnostics is a narrower fit outside that vertical |
| - | 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 Dojo Five?
A typical fit: embedded Linux firmware development needing a dedicated, remote-first team.
Stated "modern firmware" culture with explicit values (humble confidence, 40-hour weeks) built into how the team operates day to day. Minimum engagement is not publicly disclosed. Works best with clients in Medical devices, Diagnostics, Connected 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: Dojo Five 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: Dojo Five (Not published) vs EES (Not published) |
| You need specialist depth in a specific vertical | Dojo Five |
| 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: Dojo Five vs EES
| Use case | Dojo Five fit | EES fit | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Embedded Linux firmware development needing a dedicated, remote-first team | Strong | Limited | Dojo Five |
| Production-ready firmware handoff for a connected medical device | Strong | Limited | Dojo Five |
| Hiring a deliberately small, senior-led team for an industrial firmware program | Limited | Strong | EES |
| 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: Dojo Five vs EES
Dojo Five (4.5/5) is the stronger overall choice for most Embedded Firmware Development projects. Stated "modern firmware" culture with explicit values (humble confidence, 40-hour weeks) built into how the team operates day to day.
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
Dojo Five vs EES FAQ
Is Dojo Five better than EES?
Dojo Five (4.5/5) scores higher overall, but "better" depends on your use case. Dojo Five's strongest advantage: Explicit, published team culture (humble confidence, always deliver, 40-hour weeks) gives a hiring buyer real signal about who they'd be working with. 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 Dojo Five and EES differ in pricing?
Dojo Five uses project-based firmware 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: Dojo Five 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 Dojo Five and EES?
Dojo Five's primary differentiator is: stated "modern firmware" culture with explicit values (humble confidence, 40-hour weeks) built into how the team operates day to day. 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 (26 vs 3–50), minimum engagement (Not published vs Not published), and primary industries served (Medical devices, Diagnostics vs Industrial).
Verify all details directly with each developer before making a decision.