NOVO Engineering vs Elektrobit (EB): full comparison for 2026
Quick verdict
NOVO Engineering (4.4/5) edges ahead of Elektrobit (EB) (4.2/5) overall. NOVO Engineering is the better choice for multi-disciplinary product programs spanning mechanical, electrical, and firmware. Elektrobit (EB) is the stronger option for large-scale automotive firmware programs requiring ASIL D certification. The right choice depends on your project size, budget, and required tech stack.
NOVO Engineering vs Elektrobit (EB): head-to-head summary
| Criterion | NOVO Engineering | Elektrobit (EB) |
|---|---|---|
| Founded | 2004 | 1988 |
| HQ | Vista, CA, USA | Erlangen, Germany |
| Team size | 48–60 | 1,000–5,000 |
| Rating | 4.4 / 5 | 4.2 / 5 |
| Primary differentiator | Systems-engineering team averaging 16 years of experience per engineer across medical, biotech, and industrial product lines | ASIL D-certified automotive software running in more than 600 million vehicles as a Continental subsidiary |
| Pricing model | Fixed-scope product engineering engagements | Enterprise automotive software engagements |
| Min. engagement | Not published | Not published |
| Primary tech stack | C, C++, Embedded Systems Programming | MISRA C, C, C++ |
| Industries served | Medical devices, Biotech, Printing technology, Commercial products | Automotive |
NOVO Engineering vs Elektrobit (EB): overview
NOVO Engineering
NOVO Engineering was founded in 2004 and is headquartered in Vista, California near San Diego, with a second location near Minneapolis and roughly 48 to 60 engineers depending on the source. The firm's services span hardware and software development, systems engineering, custom automation, and pre-production manufacturing support across medical devices, biotech instrumentation, printing technology, and commercial products. Its firmware work sits inside that broader systems-engineering practice rather than standing alone, which suits clients that need a single partner across mechanical, electrical, and firmware disciplines on one program.
Elektrobit (EB)
Elektrobit traces its roots to 3SOFT, a firm founded in Erlangen, Germany in 1988 that became an automotive control-device specialist before its 2004 acquisition by the Finnish Elektrobit Group and 2015 acquisition by Continental, where it now operates as a wholly owned, independently run subsidiary. With more than 1,000 employees, its software runs in over 600 million vehicles worldwide, covering car infrastructure software, connectivity and security, automated driving tooling, and user-experience platforms up to ASIL D, the highest automotive functional-safety level. That scale and certification depth make it one of the largest and most safety-credentialed firms on this list, at the cost of the flexibility a smaller boutique firmware team can offer.
Services and capabilities: NOVO Engineering vs Elektrobit (EB)
| Capability | NOVO Engineering | Elektrobit (EB) |
|---|---|---|
| RTOS firmware development | ✓ | ✓ |
| Bare-metal & driver development | ✓ | ✓ |
| Secure boot / OTA firmware updates | ✗ | ✓ |
| MCU & platform migration | ✗ | ✗ |
| Connectivity & IoT protocols | ✗ | ✗ |
| Functional safety / compliance | ✗ | ✓ |
| Embedded AI / on-device inference | ✗ | ✗ |
| Firmware GUI development | ✗ | ✗ |
| Hardware co-design / board bring-up | ✓ | ✗ |
| Staff augmentation | ✗ | ✗ |
Tech stack comparison: NOVO Engineering vs Elektrobit (EB)
| Framework / platform | NOVO Engineering | Elektrobit (EB) |
|---|---|---|
| FreeRTOS | N/A | N/A |
| Zephyr | N/A | N/A |
| STM32 | N/A | N/A |
| ARM Cortex-M | N/A | N/A |
| Embedded Linux | N/A | N/A |
| BLE | N/A | N/A |
| MISRA | N/A | ✓ |
| Secure Boot | N/A | N/A |
| AWS IoT | N/A | N/A |
| RISC-V | N/A | N/A |
Pricing comparison: NOVO Engineering vs Elektrobit (EB)
| Criterion | NOVO Engineering | Elektrobit (EB) |
|---|---|---|
| Minimum engagement | Not published | Not published |
| Engagement models | Fixed-scope product engineering, Pre-production manufacturing support | Enterprise automotive software programs |
| Rate transparency | Not public | Not public |
| Price tier | Mid-market | Mid-market |
Target audience comparison: NOVO Engineering vs Elektrobit (EB)
| Dimension | NOVO Engineering | Elektrobit (EB) |
|---|---|---|
| Best company size | Startup to mid-market | Mid-market to enterprise |
| Best industries | Medical devices, Biotech, Printing technology | Automotive |
| Best use cases | Firmware development as part of a full mechanical, electrical, and software product program, Biotech instrumentation requiring firmware alongside custom automation software | ASIL D-certified safety-critical automotive control software, Large-scale automated driving software platform development |
| Typical project type | Fixed-scope product engineering | Enterprise automotive software programs |
NOVO Engineering vs Elektrobit (EB): pros and cons
| NOVO Engineering | |
|---|---|
| + | Engineering team averages 16 years of experience per engineer, well above the industry norm for a firm of its size |
| + | Systems engineering scope covers mechanical, electrical, and firmware together rather than firmware in isolation |
| + | Two US locations near San Diego and Minneapolis give geographic coverage for onsite client work |
| + | Pre-production manufacturing support extends past firmware delivery into getting a product built |
| - | Firmware is one discipline inside a broader systems-engineering firm, not a standalone firmware specialist brand |
| - | 48 to 60 engineers caps how many large concurrent programs the firm can run at once |
| - | No published pricing or minimum engagement figure |
| Elektrobit (EB) | |
|---|---|
| + | ASIL D certification, the highest automotive functional-safety integrity level, is a credential few firmware vendors on this list can match |
| + | Software runs in more than 600 million vehicles, an unusually large deployed-scale figure to verify a track record against |
| + | 1,000 to 5,000 employees give it enterprise-scale delivery capacity for the largest automotive programs |
| + | Continental ownership since 2015 provides financial stability and tier-1 automotive supplier relationships |
| - | Wholly owned by Continental, a tier-1 automotive supplier, which is a disclosed ownership relationship worth weighing for OEMs that compete with Continental's other business lines |
| - | Enterprise scale and process overhead typically make it a poor fit for small firmware projects or startups needing fast iteration |
| - | Automotive concentration means its stated expertise carries over less directly to medical, industrial, or consumer firmware work |
Who should choose NOVO Engineering?
A typical fit: firmware development as part of a full mechanical, electrical, and software product program.
Systems-engineering team averaging 16 years of experience per engineer across medical, biotech, and industrial product lines. Minimum engagement is not publicly disclosed. Works best with clients in Medical devices, Biotech, Printing technology, Commercial products.
Who should choose Elektrobit (EB)?
A typical fit: ASIL D-certified safety-critical automotive control software.
ASIL D-certified automotive software running in more than 600 million vehicles as a Continental subsidiary. Minimum engagement is not publicly disclosed. Works best with clients in Automotive.
Decision matrix: NOVO Engineering vs Elektrobit (EB)
| 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: NOVO Engineering (Not published) vs Elektrobit (EB) (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: NOVO Engineering vs Elektrobit (EB)
| Use case | NOVO Engineering fit | Elektrobit (EB) fit | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Firmware development as part of a full mechanical, electrical, and software product program | Strong | Limited | NOVO Engineering |
| Biotech instrumentation requiring firmware alongside custom automation software | Strong | Limited | NOVO Engineering |
| ASIL D-certified safety-critical automotive control software | Limited | Strong | Elektrobit (EB) |
| Large-scale automated driving software platform development | Limited | Strong | Elektrobit (EB) |
| Fixed-price build | Limited | Limited | Both equally |
| Staff augmentation | Limited | Limited | Both equally |
Verdict: NOVO Engineering vs Elektrobit (EB)
NOVO Engineering (4.4/5) is the stronger overall choice for most Firmware Development projects. Systems-engineering team averaging 16 years of experience per engineer across medical, biotech, and industrial product lines.
Elektrobit (EB) (4.2/5) is worth a look if you need large-scale automated driving software platform development. If your situation matches that, Elektrobit (EB) is a competitive option.
Related comparisons
NOVO Engineering vs Elektrobit (EB) FAQ
Is NOVO Engineering better than Elektrobit (EB)?
NOVO Engineering (4.4/5) scores higher overall, but "better" depends on your use case. NOVO Engineering's strongest advantage: engineering team averages 16 years of experience per engineer, well above the industry norm for a firm of its size. Elektrobit (EB)'s strongest advantage: ASIL D certification, the highest automotive functional-safety integrity level, is a credential few firmware vendors on this list can match.
How do NOVO Engineering and Elektrobit (EB) differ in pricing?
NOVO Engineering uses fixed-scope product engineering engagements pricing. Elektrobit (EB) uses enterprise automotive software engagements pricing. Neither firm publishes a full rate card; a discovery call is required for project-specific quotes.
Which is better for enterprise: NOVO Engineering or Elektrobit (EB)?
Elektrobit (EB) is the larger team and typically the better enterprise-scale choice. For very large programmes, verify team size and compliance coverage directly with each company before shortlisting.
What are the main differences between NOVO Engineering and Elektrobit (EB)?
NOVO Engineering's primary differentiator is: systems-engineering team averaging 16 years of experience per engineer across medical, biotech, and industrial product lines. Elektrobit (EB)'s primary differentiator is: ASIL D-certified automotive software running in more than 600 million vehicles as a Continental subsidiary. They also differ in team size (48–60 vs 1,000–5,000), minimum engagement (Not published vs Not published), and primary industries served (Medical devices, Biotech vs Automotive).
Verify all details directly with each company before making a decision.