Software development company for custom software that reaches production.

An engagement starts with an audit week. We sit with the people who will use the thing, map what they do now, and write down what has to be true for the build to have been worth the money. That document becomes the fixed estimate and the acceptance criteria at the same time, which is the single biggest reason our projects do not drift.

Then we build in two-week increments with a demo at the end of each one, running in your environment rather than on an engineer’s laptop. You can stop after any increment. Almost nobody does, but the option is what keeps scope conversations honest on both sides.

The pattern holds whether the output is a claims workbench for four hundred adjusters or an internal tool for six people. What changes is the depth of the integration work and the number of teams who have to agree, and those two variables explain most of the difference between a $15,000 project and a $90,000 one.

We do not take work we cannot finish. If your problem needs three specialists we do not have, we say so on the scoping call and point you at a firm that does. That call costs nothing and takes thirty minutes.

Eazetech opened in 2016 doing one thing: frontend engineering for companies whose products were technically correct and unusable. That practice never stopped, and it is still the reason the AI work lands. A model that returns the right answer into a screen nobody trusts is a failed project.

Today that means React and Next.js, TypeScript everywhere, design systems that survive a second team, and the unglamorous parts: focus management, keyboard paths, loading and empty and error states, forms that tell you what is wrong before you submit them. We build to WCAG 2.2 AA and test with a screen reader, not because a checklist demanded it but because the same work makes the interface faster and clearer for everyone.

Performance is treated as a feature with a number attached. Core Web Vitals budgets for LCP, INP and CLS go into the plan at the start and are held through delivery, rather than optimised at the end when the expensive architectural decisions have already been made.

The Marlowe & Co storefront is the shortest version of this argument: an 18% lift in checkout conversion across eight weeks, from interface work alone, with no change to pricing, traffic or the product being sold.

Behind the interface sit APIs, data models, background jobs, integrations and the infrastructure they run on. We work in TypeScript and Python by default, PostgreSQL for anything relational, and whatever queue or cache the load actually justifies rather than the one that looks impressive in an architecture diagram.

The bias is toward boring. Managed databases before self-hosted clusters. A monolith with clear seams before a service mesh. Server-rendered pages before another client-side state library. Every piece of infrastructure you add is something your team has to operate at three in the morning, and most products never reach the scale that justifies the complexity they are carrying.

Integrations are usually the real work. Policy systems, NetSuite, Salesforce, Zendesk, Stripe, carrier APIs, a legacy SOAP endpoint held together by a nightly file drop — we have connected to most shapes of these, and we scope them by talking to the system rather than by reading its documentation. Integration estimates taken from a doc are wrong about half the time.

Everything ships with infrastructure defined as code, environments that can be rebuilt from the repository, and deploys that run from CI instead of from somebody’s terminal.

Native where it matters, cross-platform where it does not. Most consumer and internal products are better served by React Native with native modules for the parts that touch hardware. Products with heavy camera use, background location, offline sync or strict accessibility requirements usually earn Swift and Kotlin, and we tell you which one yours is before you commit a budget rather than after.

What decides whether a mobile build succeeds is rarely the feature list. It is offline behaviour, state restoration after a cold start, push notifications that do not annoy people into switching them off, and a release process that gets a fix through review without a fire drill.

Corva Bank is the reference. A mobile banking app rebuilt over sixteen weeks in 2020 and now carrying 1.2M users. The rebuild kept the existing backend, replaced the interface end to end, and shipped with a full accessibility pass, because a banking app a screen reader cannot navigate is a regulatory problem as well as a bad product.

We also take over apps that have stalled. A stalled mobile app is almost always a build, signing and release problem before it is a code problem, and that is usually fixable in the first fortnight.

We do the part of web3 that most teams underestimate: the interface between a wallet and a person. Signing flows, transaction states, gas shown in language a human understands, recovery when a transaction is dropped or replaced, and read paths that stay responsive when an RPC node is slow.

We integrate with contracts, we do not audit them. Where a contract needs an audit we bring in a specialist firm and build the front end against their findings. Auditing contracts you also wrote is how money gets lost.

Vaultic is the documented example: a wallet portfolio interface and smart-contract front end delivered in ten weeks in 2021, shipped alongside a third-party contract audit. The interesting engineering there was not the chain calls. It was making a portfolio reconcile correctly while three transactions are pending and one has just been reorganised out of a block.

If your project is a token launch or a drop, we are probably not the right shop. If it is a product where a chain happens to be the ledger, we are.

Security work runs as its own engagement or as a phase inside a build. A review covers authentication and session handling, authorisation at the object level rather than the route level, input validation, dependency and supply-chain exposure, secret management, logging, and the parts of a cloud account that are still open because somebody was debugging in 2021.

We use the OWASP Top 10 and ASVS as a floor, then spend most of the time on the two categories that produce real incidents: broken access control and everything to do with credentials. Findings come back ranked by exploitability against your actual deployment, with a remediation plan and, where you want it, our engineers doing the remediation.

MedArc came to us after a failed assessment ahead of a healthcare contract. Twelve weeks later the re-test returned zero critical findings. Most of that work was not exotic: authorisation checks that had been assumed rather than written, and a deployment pipeline that was shipping secrets in environment files.

We do not sell penetration tests we cannot stand behind, and for a final assessment we recommend an independent tester rather than marking our own homework. What we are good at is the engineering that makes the second test come back clean.

Design is not a line item you can decline. Every build includes it, because a screen designed by someone who has to implement it makes different and better decisions than one thrown over a wall.

In practice that means a week of interface work at the start producing clickable flows rather than static comps, a design system built in code as components rather than in a design file as symbols, and content design treated as part of the interface. The label on a button decides more conversions than its colour.

Adoption is the measure we hold ourselves to. The Nordwind claims workbench reached 95% adoption in its first week, and the reason is not the model underneath it. It is that adjusters could see the evidence behind every recommendation and accept, edit or reject it in one click, in a layout that matched how they already worked.

There is no separate design phase you pay for and then wait through. Design and engineering run in the same increments, and the demo at the end of each one is the design review.

About a third of our software work is code somebody else wrote. A first version shipped fast, it worked, the team that built it left, and now every change takes three weeks and breaks something adjacent.

We open these with a two-week assessment instead of a proposal. Read the code, run it, instrument it, talk to whoever still maintains it, then produce a map of what is load-bearing, what is dead and what is quietly costing money every month. The output is a choice with numbers next to it: strangle it incrementally, rewrite one bounded piece, or leave it alone and build beside it.

The answer is usually less dramatic than the client expects. A full rewrite is the most expensive option and the one most likely to fail, and we will argue against it unless the assessment shows the existing system cannot carry the next requirement at any sensible cost.

Where a rewrite is right, we do it behind the existing interface, one route at a time, with both versions running until traffic has moved across. Nobody gets a launch weekend, and nobody has to hold a rollback plan for a big bang.

Done is not a demo. Done is: the acceptance criteria written in the audit week all pass, the test suite runs green in CI on every merge, the infrastructure can be rebuilt from the repository, the runbook explains what to do when the third-party API is down, and somebody on your side has deployed it once with us watching.

Every pull request is reviewed by a second engineer. End-to-end tests cover the paths that carry money or data loss; unit tests cover the logic that is easy to get subtly wrong. We do not chase a coverage percentage, because a number that high is usually bought with tests nobody reads.