Dojo Five vs NeuronicWorks: full comparison for 2026
Quick verdict
Dojo Five (4.5/5) edges ahead of NeuronicWorks (3.9/5) overall. Dojo Five is the better choice for teams that want a remote-first firmware partner with an explicit engineering culture. NeuronicWorks is the stronger option for teams wanting the same engineers to carry a product from firmware through manufacturing. The right choice depends on your project size, budget, and required tech stack.
Dojo Five vs NeuronicWorks: head-to-head summary
| Criterion | Dojo Five | NeuronicWorks |
|---|---|---|
| Founded | 2018 | 2009 |
| HQ | Saint Paul, MN, USA | Toronto, Canada |
| Team size | 26 | 51–200 |
| Rating | 4.5 / 5 | 3.9 / 5 |
| Primary differentiator | Stated "modern firmware" culture with explicit values (humble confidence, 40-hour weeks) built into how the team operates day to day | In-house manufacturing capability, including box build and PCB assembly, means the firmware team stays involved through physical production |
| Pricing model | Project-based firmware engagements | Fixed-scope product development and manufacturing engagements |
| Min. engagement | Not published | Not published |
| Primary tech stack | C, C++, Python | C, C++, Embedded Wearable Platforms |
| Industries served | Medical devices, Diagnostics, Connected devices | Wearable devices, IoT systems, Consumer electronics |
Dojo Five vs NeuronicWorks: 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.
NeuronicWorks
NeuronicWorks was founded in Toronto, Ontario in 2009 and has grown to a team in the 51 to 200 employee range. The firm's manufacturing capability, including box build and PCB assembly, means a client hiring this team is also hiring the people who will physically build the product, not handing production off to a separate contractor once firmware ships. For a buyer weighing team continuity from prototype through production, that end-to-end staffing model is a specific structural advantage.
Services and capabilities: Dojo Five vs NeuronicWorks
| Capability | Dojo Five | NeuronicWorks |
|---|---|---|
| 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 NeuronicWorks
| Framework / platform | Dojo Five | NeuronicWorks |
|---|---|---|
| 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 NeuronicWorks
| Criterion | Dojo Five | NeuronicWorks |
|---|---|---|
| Minimum engagement | Not published | Not published |
| Engagement models | Project-based firmware development | Fixed-scope product development, High-volume manufacturing programs |
| Rate transparency | Not public | Not public |
| Price tier | Mid-market | Mid-market |
Target audience comparison: Dojo Five vs NeuronicWorks
| Dimension | Dojo Five | NeuronicWorks |
|---|---|---|
| Best company size | Startup to mid-market | Startup to mid-market |
| Best industries | Medical devices, Diagnostics, Connected devices | Wearable devices, IoT systems, Consumer electronics |
| Best use cases | Embedded Linux firmware development needing a dedicated, remote-first team, Production-ready firmware handoff for a connected medical device | Hiring a team that stays involved from firmware through box-build manufacturing, Wearable device firmware development needing manufacturing continuity |
| Typical project type | Project-based firmware development | Fixed-scope product development |
Dojo Five vs NeuronicWorks: 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 |
| NeuronicWorks | |
|---|---|
| + | Manufacturing capability, including box build and PCB assembly, means the same team stays engaged through physical production, not just firmware |
| + | 16 years of operating history with a team that has grown into the 51 to 200 employee range |
| + | Wearable device and IoT systems focus means firmware engineers work alongside teams already solving the same power and size constraints |
| + | Qualification and certification support is built into its stated service scope |
| - | Broad scope across hardware, firmware, mechanical, UI/UX, and manufacturing means firmware specialists are one part of a larger organization |
| - | No published pricing or minimum engagement figure |
| - | Public case study detail with named client outcomes is limited |
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 NeuronicWorks?
A typical fit: hiring a team that stays involved from firmware through box-build manufacturing.
In-house manufacturing capability, including box build and PCB assembly, means the firmware team stays involved through physical production. Minimum engagement is not publicly disclosed. Works best with clients in Wearable devices, IoT systems, Consumer electronics.
Decision matrix: Dojo Five vs NeuronicWorks
| Your situation | Recommended choice |
|---|---|
| You need full-ownership delivery on a defined project scope | NeuronicWorks |
| 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 NeuronicWorks (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 NeuronicWorks
| Use case | Dojo Five fit | NeuronicWorks fit | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Embedded Linux firmware development needing a dedicated, remote-first team | Strong | Limited | Dojo Five |
| Production-ready firmware handoff for a connected medical device | Strong | Limited | Dojo Five |
| Hiring a team that stays involved from firmware through box-build manufacturing | Limited | Strong | NeuronicWorks |
| Wearable device firmware development needing manufacturing continuity | Limited | Strong | NeuronicWorks |
| Fixed-price build | Limited | Limited | Both equally |
| Staff augmentation | Limited | Limited | Both equally |
Verdict: Dojo Five vs NeuronicWorks
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.
NeuronicWorks (3.9/5) is worth a look if you need wearable device firmware development needing manufacturing continuity. If your situation matches that, NeuronicWorks is a competitive option.
Related comparisons
Dojo Five vs NeuronicWorks FAQ
Is Dojo Five better than NeuronicWorks?
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. NeuronicWorks's strongest advantage: manufacturing capability, including box build and PCB assembly, means the same team stays engaged through physical production, not just firmware.
How do Dojo Five and NeuronicWorks differ in pricing?
Dojo Five uses project-based firmware engagements pricing. NeuronicWorks uses fixed-scope product development and manufacturing 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 NeuronicWorks?
NeuronicWorks 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 NeuronicWorks?
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. NeuronicWorks's primary differentiator is: in-house manufacturing capability, including box build and PCB assembly, means the firmware team stays involved through physical production. They also differ in team size (26 vs 51–200), minimum engagement (Not published vs Not published), and primary industries served (Medical devices, Diagnostics vs Wearable devices, IoT systems).
Verify all details directly with each developer before making a decision.