Dojo Five vs NOVO Engineering: full comparison for 2026
Quick verdict
Dojo Five (4.5/5) edges ahead of NOVO Engineering (4.1/5) overall. Dojo Five is the better choice for teams that want a remote-first firmware partner with an explicit engineering culture. 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.
Dojo Five vs NOVO Engineering: head-to-head summary
| Criterion | Dojo Five | NOVO Engineering |
|---|---|---|
| Founded | 2018 | 2004 |
| HQ | Saint Paul, MN, USA | Vista, CA, USA |
| Team size | 26 | 48–60 |
| Rating | 4.5 / 5 | 4.1 / 5 |
| Primary differentiator | Stated "modern firmware" culture with explicit values (humble confidence, 40-hour weeks) built into how the team operates day to day | Engineering team averaging 16 years of experience per engineer, a specific and checkable seniority claim |
| Pricing model | Project-based firmware engagements | Fixed-scope product engineering engagements |
| Min. engagement | Not published | Not published |
| Primary tech stack | C, C++, Python | C, C++, Embedded Systems Programming |
| Industries served | Medical devices, Diagnostics, Connected devices | Medical devices, Biotech, Printing technology, Commercial products |
Dojo Five vs NOVO Engineering: 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.
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: Dojo Five vs NOVO Engineering
| Capability | Dojo Five | 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: Dojo Five vs NOVO Engineering
| Framework / platform | Dojo Five | NOVO Engineering |
|---|---|---|
| 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 NOVO Engineering
| Criterion | Dojo Five | NOVO Engineering |
|---|---|---|
| Minimum engagement | Not published | Not published |
| Engagement models | Project-based firmware development | Fixed-scope product engineering, Pre-production manufacturing support |
| Rate transparency | Not public | Not public |
| Price tier | Mid-market | Mid-market |
Target audience comparison: Dojo Five vs NOVO Engineering
| Dimension | Dojo Five | NOVO Engineering |
|---|---|---|
| Best company size | Startup to mid-market | Startup to mid-market |
| Best industries | Medical devices, Diagnostics, Connected devices | Medical devices, Biotech, Printing technology |
| Best use cases | Embedded Linux firmware development needing a dedicated, remote-first team, Production-ready firmware handoff for a connected medical device | Hiring a multi-discipline team spanning mechanical, electrical, and firmware, Biotech instrumentation development needing senior, cross-discipline engineers |
| Typical project type | Project-based firmware development | Fixed-scope product engineering |
Dojo Five vs NOVO Engineering: 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 |
| 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 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 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: Dojo Five 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: Dojo Five (Not published) vs NOVO Engineering (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: Dojo Five vs NOVO Engineering
| Use case | Dojo Five fit | NOVO Engineering 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 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 | Limited | Limited | Both equally |
Verdict: Dojo Five vs NOVO Engineering
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.
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
Dojo Five vs NOVO Engineering FAQ
Is Dojo Five better than NOVO Engineering?
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. NOVO Engineering's strongest advantage: engineering team averages 16 years of experience per engineer, a specific, checkable seniority claim.
How do Dojo Five and NOVO Engineering differ in pricing?
Dojo Five uses project-based firmware engagements 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: Dojo Five or NOVO Engineering?
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 developer before shortlisting.
What are the main differences between Dojo Five and NOVO Engineering?
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. 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 (26 vs 48–60), minimum engagement (Not published vs Not published), and primary industries served (Medical devices, Diagnostics vs Medical devices, Biotech).
Verify all details directly with each developer before making a decision.