NOVO Engineering vs WebbyLab: full comparison for 2026
Quick verdict
NOVO Engineering (4.4/5) edges ahead of WebbyLab (4.3/5) overall. NOVO Engineering is the better choice for multi-disciplinary product programs spanning mechanical, electrical, and firmware. WebbyLab is the stronger option for full-cycle IoT programs spanning firmware, cloud, and mobile. The right choice depends on your project size, budget, and required tech stack.
NOVO Engineering vs WebbyLab: head-to-head summary
| Criterion | NOVO Engineering | WebbyLab |
|---|---|---|
| Founded | 2004 | 2011 |
| HQ | Vista, CA, USA | Kyiv, Ukraine (also London, UK) |
| Team size | 48–60 | 120+ |
| Rating | 4.4 / 5 | 4.3 / 5 |
| Primary differentiator | Systems-engineering team averaging 16 years of experience per engineer across medical, biotech, and industrial product lines | Full-cycle delivery from hardware selection through firmware and the connected application layer under one team |
| Pricing model | Fixed-scope product engineering engagements | Project-based full-cycle IoT engagements |
| Min. engagement | Not published | Not published |
| Primary tech stack | C, C++, Embedded Systems Programming | C, C++, IoT Connectivity Protocols |
| Industries served | Medical devices, Biotech, Printing technology, Commercial products | IoT hardware products, Fintech, E-commerce |
NOVO Engineering vs WebbyLab: 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.
WebbyLab
WebbyLab was founded in 2011 by Anton Morozov and Viktor Turskyi and now operates from Kyiv and London with more than 120 engineers spanning hardware, firmware, and software disciplines. The firm describes itself as full-cycle, taking a connected-device project from hardware selection through firmware and the cloud or mobile application that talks to it, with IoT and embedded systems named as a core specialty alongside AI and blockchain work. Fortune 500 clients are cited among its customer base, though specific project names are not detailed publicly.
Services and capabilities: NOVO Engineering vs WebbyLab
| Capability | NOVO Engineering | WebbyLab |
|---|---|---|
| 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 WebbyLab
| Framework / platform | NOVO Engineering | WebbyLab |
|---|---|---|
| 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 | 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 WebbyLab
| Criterion | NOVO Engineering | WebbyLab |
|---|---|---|
| Minimum engagement | Not published | Not published |
| Engagement models | Fixed-scope product engineering, Pre-production manufacturing support | Project-based full-cycle development |
| Rate transparency | Not public | Not public |
| Price tier | Mid-market | Mid-market |
Target audience comparison: NOVO Engineering vs WebbyLab
| Dimension | NOVO Engineering | WebbyLab |
|---|---|---|
| Best company size | Startup to mid-market | Startup to mid-market |
| Best industries | Medical devices, Biotech, Printing technology | IoT hardware products, Fintech, E-commerce |
| Best use cases | Firmware development as part of a full mechanical, electrical, and software product program, Biotech instrumentation requiring firmware alongside custom automation software | Full-cycle IoT product from hardware selection through firmware and its companion mobile app, Embedded firmware for a connected device requiring cloud integration |
| Typical project type | Fixed-scope product engineering | Project-based full-cycle development |
NOVO Engineering vs WebbyLab: 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 |
| WebbyLab | |
|---|---|
| + | Full-cycle scope covering hardware, firmware, and the connected cloud or mobile application reduces the number of vendors a client needs to coordinate |
| + | 120-plus engineers gives more concurrent-program capacity than most boutique firmware consultancies |
| + | 14 years of operating history under its original two founders |
| + | Fortune 500 client relationships are cited, indicating capacity for large-organization procurement processes |
| - | IoT and embedded is one specialty alongside AI, blockchain, fintech, and e-commerce work, not the company'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 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 WebbyLab?
A typical fit: full-cycle IoT product from hardware selection through firmware and its companion mobile app.
Full-cycle delivery from hardware selection through firmware and the connected application layer under one team. Minimum engagement is not publicly disclosed. Works best with clients in IoT hardware products, Fintech, E-commerce.
Decision matrix: NOVO Engineering vs WebbyLab
| 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 WebbyLab (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 WebbyLab
| Use case | NOVO Engineering fit | WebbyLab 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 |
| Full-cycle IoT product from hardware selection through firmware and its companion mobile app | Limited | Strong | WebbyLab |
| Embedded firmware for a connected device requiring cloud integration | Limited | Strong | WebbyLab |
| Fixed-price build | Limited | Limited | Both equally |
| Staff augmentation | Limited | Limited | Both equally |
Verdict: NOVO Engineering vs WebbyLab
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.
WebbyLab (4.3/5) is worth a look if you need embedded firmware for a connected device requiring cloud integration. If your situation matches that, WebbyLab is a competitive option.
Related comparisons
NOVO Engineering vs WebbyLab FAQ
Is NOVO Engineering better than WebbyLab?
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. WebbyLab's strongest advantage: full-cycle scope covering hardware, firmware, and the connected cloud or mobile application reduces the number of vendors a client needs to coordinate.
How do NOVO Engineering and WebbyLab differ in pricing?
NOVO Engineering uses fixed-scope product engineering 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: NOVO Engineering or WebbyLab?
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 WebbyLab?
NOVO Engineering's primary differentiator is: systems-engineering team averaging 16 years of experience per engineer across medical, biotech, and industrial product lines. WebbyLab's primary differentiator is: full-cycle delivery from hardware selection through firmware and the connected application layer under one team. They also differ in team size (48–60 vs 120+), minimum engagement (Not published vs Not published), and primary industries served (Medical devices, Biotech vs IoT hardware products, Fintech).
Verify all details directly with each company before making a decision.