Dojo Five vs WebbyLab: full comparison for 2026
Quick verdict
Dojo Five (4.5/5) edges ahead of WebbyLab (3.8/5) overall. Dojo Five is the better choice for teams that want a remote-first firmware partner with an explicit engineering culture. WebbyLab is the stronger option for teams needing full-cycle staffing from hardware selection through the connected application layer. The right choice depends on your project size, budget, and required tech stack.
Dojo Five vs WebbyLab: head-to-head summary
| Criterion | Dojo Five | WebbyLab |
|---|---|---|
| Founded | 2018 | 2011 |
| HQ | Saint Paul, MN, USA | Kyiv, Ukraine (also London, UK) |
| Team size | 26 | 120+ |
| 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 | Grew from a small graduate-student founding team to 120+ engineers over 14 years, with Fortune 500 client relationships along the way |
| Pricing model | Project-based firmware engagements | Project-based full-cycle IoT engagements |
| Min. engagement | Not published | Not published |
| Primary tech stack | C, C++, Python | C, C++, IoT Connectivity Protocols |
| Industries served | Medical devices, Diagnostics, Connected devices | IoT hardware products, Fintech, E-commerce |
Dojo Five vs WebbyLab: 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.
WebbyLab
WebbyLab was founded in 2011 by Anton Morozov and Viktor Turskyi, who started the company as graduate students with a handful of people and limited resources, and now operates from Kyiv and London with more than 120 engineers across hardware, firmware, and software disciplines. That growth story, from a small founding team to a 120-plus person organization over 14 years, matters to a hiring buyer weighing whether a team can scale with a growing program while Fortune 500 client relationships indicate the team has already handled large-organization hiring processes.
Services and capabilities: Dojo Five vs WebbyLab
| Capability | Dojo Five | WebbyLab |
|---|---|---|
| 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 WebbyLab
| Framework / platform | Dojo Five | WebbyLab |
|---|---|---|
| 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 WebbyLab
| Criterion | Dojo Five | WebbyLab |
|---|---|---|
| Minimum engagement | Not published | Not published |
| Engagement models | Project-based firmware development | Project-based full-cycle development |
| Rate transparency | Not public | Not public |
| Price tier | Mid-market | Mid-market |
Target audience comparison: Dojo Five vs WebbyLab
| Dimension | Dojo Five | WebbyLab |
|---|---|---|
| Best company size | Startup to mid-market | Startup to mid-market |
| Best industries | Medical devices, Diagnostics, Connected devices | IoT hardware products, Fintech, E-commerce |
| Best use cases | Embedded Linux firmware development needing a dedicated, remote-first team, Production-ready firmware handoff for a connected medical device | Hiring a full-cycle team spanning hardware selection through firmware and its companion mobile app, Staffing an embedded firmware program requiring cloud integration |
| Typical project type | Project-based firmware development | Project-based full-cycle development |
Dojo Five vs WebbyLab: 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 |
| WebbyLab | |
|---|---|
| + | Growth from a small graduate-student founding team to 120+ engineers over 14 years demonstrates an ability to scale hiring while retaining quality |
| + | Full-cycle scope from hardware selection through the connected application layer reduces the vendor count a client needs to coordinate |
| + | Fortune 500 client relationships indicate prior experience with large-organization hiring and 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 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 WebbyLab?
A typical fit: hiring a full-cycle team spanning hardware selection through firmware and its companion mobile app.
Grew from a small graduate-student founding team to 120+ engineers over 14 years, with Fortune 500 client relationships along the way. Minimum engagement is not publicly disclosed. Works best with clients in IoT hardware products, Fintech, E-commerce.
Decision matrix: Dojo Five vs WebbyLab
| 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 WebbyLab (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 WebbyLab
| Use case | Dojo Five fit | WebbyLab fit | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Embedded Linux firmware development needing a dedicated, remote-first team | Strong | Strong | Both equally |
| Production-ready firmware handoff for a connected medical device | Strong | Limited | Dojo Five |
| Hiring a full-cycle team spanning hardware selection through firmware and its companion mobile app | Limited | Strong | WebbyLab |
| Staffing an embedded firmware program requiring cloud integration | Limited | Strong | WebbyLab |
| Fixed-price build | Limited | Limited | Both equally |
| Staff augmentation | Limited | Strong | WebbyLab |
Verdict: Dojo Five vs WebbyLab
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.
WebbyLab (3.8/5) is worth a look if you need staffing an embedded firmware program requiring cloud integration. If your situation matches that, WebbyLab is a competitive option.
Related comparisons
Dojo Five vs WebbyLab FAQ
Is Dojo Five better than WebbyLab?
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. WebbyLab's strongest advantage: growth from a small graduate-student founding team to 120+ engineers over 14 years demonstrates an ability to scale hiring while retaining quality.
How do Dojo Five and WebbyLab differ in pricing?
Dojo Five uses project-based firmware 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: Dojo Five or WebbyLab?
WebbyLab 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 WebbyLab?
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. WebbyLab's primary differentiator is: grew from a small graduate-student founding team to 120+ engineers over 14 years, with Fortune 500 client relationships along the way. They also differ in team size (26 vs 120+), minimum engagement (Not published vs Not published), and primary industries served (Medical devices, Diagnostics vs IoT hardware products, Fintech).
Verify all details directly with each developer before making a decision.