NOVO Engineering vs EmLogic AS: full comparison for 2026
Quick verdict
NOVO Engineering (4.4/5) edges ahead of EmLogic AS (4.0/5) overall. NOVO Engineering is the better choice for multi-disciplinary product programs spanning mechanical, electrical, and firmware. EmLogic AS is the stronger option for zephyr RTOS firmware development and migration. The right choice depends on your project size, budget, and required tech stack.
NOVO Engineering vs EmLogic AS: head-to-head summary
| Criterion | NOVO Engineering | EmLogic AS |
|---|---|---|
| Founded | 2004 | 2021 |
| HQ | Vista, CA, USA | Norway |
| Team size | 48–60 | Not published |
| Rating | 4.4 / 5 | 4.0 / 5 |
| Primary differentiator | Systems-engineering team averaging 16 years of experience per engineer across medical, biotech, and industrial product lines | Founding team with prior embedded-company-building experience concentrated specifically on Zephyr RTOS |
| Pricing model | Fixed-scope product engineering engagements | Project-based embedded design engagements |
| Min. engagement | Not published | Not published |
| Primary tech stack | C, C++, Embedded Systems Programming | Zephyr RTOS, FPGA, C |
| Industries served | Medical devices, Biotech, Printing technology, Commercial products | Industrial, IoT hardware |
NOVO Engineering vs EmLogic AS: 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.
EmLogic AS
EmLogic AS was founded on January 1, 2021 by Michal Koziel, Snorre Meland, Sven Ivar Mørch, and Espen Tallaksen, each with prior experience founding similar embedded companies, and operates as part of the TechSeed group in Norway. The firm specializes in embedded software, FPGA, and hardware design, with particular depth in Zephyr RTOS, the Linux Foundation-hosted real-time operating system that has become a de facto industry standard for secure, low-power connected devices. Its recency as a company means a shorter public track record than most competitors, offset by founders who each carry prior embedded-industry company-building experience.
Services and capabilities: NOVO Engineering vs EmLogic AS
| Capability | NOVO Engineering | EmLogic AS |
|---|---|---|
| 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 EmLogic AS
| Framework / platform | NOVO Engineering | EmLogic AS |
|---|---|---|
| FreeRTOS | N/A | N/A |
| Zephyr | 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 | 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 EmLogic AS
| Criterion | NOVO Engineering | EmLogic AS |
|---|---|---|
| Minimum engagement | Not published | Not published |
| Engagement models | Fixed-scope product engineering, Pre-production manufacturing support | Project-based embedded design |
| Rate transparency | Not public | Not public |
| Price tier | Mid-market | Mid-market |
Target audience comparison: NOVO Engineering vs EmLogic AS
| Dimension | NOVO Engineering | EmLogic AS |
|---|---|---|
| Best company size | Startup to mid-market | Startup to mid-market |
| Best industries | Medical devices, Biotech, Printing technology | Industrial, IoT hardware |
| Best use cases | Firmware development as part of a full mechanical, electrical, and software product program, Biotech instrumentation requiring firmware alongside custom automation software | Migration of existing firmware from a legacy RTOS to Zephyr, New product firmware built natively on Zephyr RTOS |
| Typical project type | Fixed-scope product engineering | Project-based embedded design |
NOVO Engineering vs EmLogic AS: 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 |
| EmLogic AS | |
|---|---|
| + | Zephyr RTOS specialization targets the real-time operating system the Linux Foundation and much of the industry now treat as the de facto standard |
| + | All four founders bring prior experience founding similar embedded companies, not first-time entrepreneurship |
| + | FPGA and hardware design capability alongside firmware covers projects that need custom logic as well as MCU code |
| + | Part of the TechSeed group in Norway, giving it access to a broader company-building network |
| - | Founded in 2021, giving it the shortest public operating history of any company on this list |
| - | Public team size and detailed case study history are not yet published |
| - | No published pricing or minimum engagement figure |
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 EmLogic AS?
A typical fit: migration of existing firmware from a legacy RTOS to Zephyr.
Founding team with prior embedded-company-building experience concentrated specifically on Zephyr RTOS. Minimum engagement is not publicly disclosed. Works best with clients in Industrial, IoT hardware.
Decision matrix: NOVO Engineering vs EmLogic AS
| 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 EmLogic AS (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 EmLogic AS
| Use case | NOVO Engineering fit | EmLogic AS fit | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Firmware development as part of a full mechanical, electrical, and software product program | Strong | Strong | Both equally |
| Biotech instrumentation requiring firmware alongside custom automation software | Strong | Limited | NOVO Engineering |
| Migration of existing firmware from a legacy RTOS to Zephyr | Limited | Strong | EmLogic AS |
| New product firmware built natively on Zephyr RTOS | Limited | Strong | EmLogic AS |
| Fixed-price build | Limited | Limited | Both equally |
| Staff augmentation | Limited | Limited | Both equally |
Verdict: NOVO Engineering vs EmLogic AS
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.
EmLogic AS (4.0/5) is worth a look if you need new product firmware built natively on Zephyr RTOS. If your situation matches that, EmLogic AS is a competitive option.
Related comparisons
NOVO Engineering vs EmLogic AS FAQ
Is NOVO Engineering better than EmLogic AS?
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. EmLogic AS's strongest advantage: zephyr RTOS specialization targets the real-time operating system the Linux Foundation and much of the industry now treat as the de facto standard.
How do NOVO Engineering and EmLogic AS differ in pricing?
NOVO Engineering uses fixed-scope product engineering engagements pricing. EmLogic AS uses project-based embedded design 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 EmLogic AS?
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 company before shortlisting.
What are the main differences between NOVO Engineering and EmLogic AS?
NOVO Engineering's primary differentiator is: systems-engineering team averaging 16 years of experience per engineer across medical, biotech, and industrial product lines. EmLogic AS's primary differentiator is: founding team with prior embedded-company-building experience concentrated specifically on Zephyr RTOS. They also differ in team size (48–60 vs Not published), minimum engagement (Not published vs Not published), and primary industries served (Medical devices, Biotech vs Industrial, IoT hardware).
Verify all details directly with each company before making a decision.