Lemberg Solutions vs Conclusive Engineering: full comparison for 2026
Quick verdict
Lemberg Solutions (4.8/5) edges ahead of Conclusive Engineering (4.3/5) overall. Lemberg Solutions is the better choice for teams needing dedicated engineers with direct chip-vendor backing. Conclusive Engineering is the stronger option for teams valuing engineers with named prior experience at recognized companies. The right choice depends on your project size, budget, and required tech stack.
Lemberg Solutions vs Conclusive Engineering: head-to-head summary
| Criterion | Lemberg Solutions | Conclusive Engineering |
|---|---|---|
| Founded | 2007 | 2018 |
| HQ | Lviv, Ukraine (offices in Hamburg, Germany; London, UK; Kraków, Poland) | Katowice, Poland |
| Team size | 200+ | 30–50 |
| Rating | 4.8 / 5 | 4.3 / 5 |
| Primary differentiator | 200+ engineers across four countries with direct NXP, STMicroelectronics, and Microchip partner status and an in-house hardware lab | Team includes engineers with prior experience at Cadence Design Systems and iXsystems, backed by Nordic Semiconductor and Texas Instruments partner status |
| Pricing model | Firmware consulting, design-phase engagement, full development lifecycle, or staff augmentation | Design-phase consulting, project-based engineering engagements |
| Min. engagement | Not published | Not published |
| Primary tech stack | FreeRTOS, Zephyr, Azure RTOS | FreeRTOS, Embedded Linux, FreeBSD |
| Industries served | Healthcare (FDA, HIPAA, IEC 62304, ISO 13485), Energy, Transportation & Logistics, Manufacturing & Industrial IoT, Consumer Electronics, Automotive | Automotive, Healthcare, Industrial, Manufacturing |
Lemberg Solutions vs Conclusive Engineering: overview
Lemberg Solutions
Lemberg Solutions was founded in 2007 in Lviv, Ukraine and has grown to a 200+ person team with additional offices in Hamburg, London, and Kraków. For a buyer evaluating who they'd actually work with, the firm's scale means dedicated engineers rather than shared generalist staff, backed by direct partnership status with NXP, STMicroelectronics, and Microchip and an in-house hardware lab the team uses daily for board bring-up. ISO 9001, ISO 27001, and ISO 13485 certifications reflect process discipline a hiring manager can expect from the assigned team, not just a company-wide policy on paper.
Conclusive Engineering
Conclusive Engineering was founded in 2018 in Katowice, Poland by Jakub Klama and Wojciech Kloska, with a team most sources place between 30 and 50 engineers, several of whom carry prior experience at Cadence Design Systems, iXsystems, and Silicon Valley startups. That prior-employer detail matters to a hiring-focused buyer the same way it would in a direct hiring decision: it's evidence of where the team's actual technical judgment was formed, not just a generic claim of expertise. Nordic Semiconductor and Texas Instruments partner status backs the team's chip-selection work with vendor-level support.
Services and capabilities: Lemberg Solutions vs Conclusive Engineering
| Capability | Lemberg Solutions | Conclusive Engineering |
|---|---|---|
| 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: Lemberg Solutions vs Conclusive Engineering
| Framework / platform | Lemberg Solutions | Conclusive Engineering |
|---|---|---|
| C | ✓ | ✓ |
| C++ | ✓ | ✓ |
| FreeRTOS | ✓ | ✓ |
| Zephyr | ✓ | N/A |
| FPGA | N/A | ✓ |
| Embedded Linux | ✓ | ✓ |
| LVGL | ✓ | N/A |
| AWS IoT | N/A | N/A |
| ARM Cortex-M | ✓ | N/A |
Pricing comparison: Lemberg Solutions vs Conclusive Engineering
| Criterion | Lemberg Solutions | Conclusive Engineering |
|---|---|---|
| Minimum engagement | Not published | Not published |
| Engagement models | Firmware consulting, Design-phase engagement, Full development lifecycle, Staff augmentation | Design-phase consulting, Project-based engineering |
| Rate transparency | Not public | Not public |
| Price tier | Mid-market | Mid-market |
Target audience comparison: Lemberg Solutions vs Conclusive Engineering
| Dimension | Lemberg Solutions | Conclusive Engineering |
|---|---|---|
| Best company size | Startup to mid-market | Startup to mid-market |
| Best industries | Healthcare (FDA, HIPAA, IEC 62304, ISO 13485), Energy, Transportation & Logistics | Automotive, Healthcare, Industrial |
| Best use cases | Extending an in-house team with dedicated RTOS and bare-metal engineers, Hardware validation and board bring-up needing a team with its own lab equipment | Hiring a team with verifiable prior experience at recognized engineering companies, FreeBSD-based embedded Linux development needing uncommon platform depth |
| Typical project type | Firmware consulting | Design-phase consulting |
Lemberg Solutions vs Conclusive Engineering: pros and cons
| Lemberg Solutions | |
|---|---|
| + | 200+ engineers give a hiring team dedicated staff rather than shared generalists spread thin across many clients |
| + | In-house hardware lab means the assigned team validates board bring-up itself rather than waiting on a separate department |
| + | Direct NXP, STMicroelectronics, and Microchip partner status is a credential the actual engineers on a project can draw on directly |
| + | ISO 9001, ISO 27001, and ISO 13485 certifications reflect process discipline built into daily team workflow, not just policy documents |
| + | Full IP and source code rights transfer to the client on delivery |
| - | Does not run mass production in-house, so a manufacturing handoff still needs a separate team |
| - | Does not handle regulatory certification filings on the client's behalf |
| - | No published minimum engagement figure, so team-size and cost fit needs a direct scoping conversation |
| Conclusive Engineering | |
|---|---|
| + | Engineers with prior experience at Cadence Design Systems and iXsystems give a hiring buyer a concrete, checkable background to evaluate |
| + | Nordic Semiconductor and Texas Instruments partner status backs the team's own chip-selection judgment with vendor-level support |
| + | FreeBSD depth is uncommon among competing teams, most of whom default to Linux or bare-metal only |
| + | 7 years of operating history under its two named co-founders |
| - | Team size estimates vary between roughly 30 and 50 engineers depending on source |
| - | 7 years of operating history is shorter than several other boutique teams on this list |
| - | No published pricing or minimum engagement threshold |
Who should choose Lemberg Solutions?
A typical fit: extending an in-house team with dedicated RTOS and bare-metal engineers.
200+ engineers across four countries with direct NXP, STMicroelectronics, and Microchip partner status and an in-house hardware lab. Minimum engagement is not publicly disclosed. Works best with clients in Healthcare (FDA, HIPAA, IEC 62304, ISO 13485), Energy, Transportation & Logistics, Manufacturing & Industrial IoT, Consumer Electronics, Automotive.
Who should choose Conclusive Engineering?
A typical fit: hiring a team with verifiable prior experience at recognized engineering companies.
Team includes engineers with prior experience at Cadence Design Systems and iXsystems, backed by Nordic Semiconductor and Texas Instruments partner status. Minimum engagement is not publicly disclosed. Works best with clients in Automotive, Healthcare, Industrial, Manufacturing.
Decision matrix: Lemberg Solutions vs Conclusive Engineering
| Your situation | Recommended choice |
|---|---|
| You need full-ownership delivery on a defined project scope | Both offer fixed-price models |
| You need a large dedicated team for an ongoing programme | Check each company's engagement model |
| Your budget is at the lower end | Compare: Lemberg Solutions (Not published) vs Conclusive Engineering (Not published) |
| You need specialist depth in a specific vertical | Lemberg Solutions |
| You need staff augmentation or team extension | Lemberg Solutions |
| You need consulting before committing to a build | Both may offer discovery engagements |
Use case fit: Lemberg Solutions vs Conclusive Engineering
| Use case | Lemberg Solutions fit | Conclusive Engineering fit | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Extending an in-house team with dedicated RTOS and bare-metal engineers | Strong | Limited | Lemberg Solutions |
| Hardware validation and board bring-up needing a team with its own lab equipment | Strong | Limited | Lemberg Solutions |
| Hiring a team with verifiable prior experience at recognized engineering companies | Limited | Strong | Conclusive Engineering |
| FreeBSD-based embedded Linux development needing uncommon platform depth | Limited | Strong | Conclusive Engineering |
| Fixed-price build | Limited | Limited | Both equally |
| Staff augmentation | Limited | Limited | Both equally |
Verdict: Lemberg Solutions vs Conclusive Engineering
Lemberg Solutions (4.8/5) is the stronger overall choice for most Embedded Firmware Development projects. 200+ engineers across four countries with direct NXP, STMicroelectronics, and Microchip partner status and an in-house hardware lab.
Conclusive Engineering (4.3/5) is worth a look if you need FreeBSD-based embedded Linux development needing uncommon platform depth. If your situation matches that, Conclusive Engineering is a competitive option.
Related comparisons
Lemberg Solutions vs Conclusive Engineering FAQ
Is Lemberg Solutions better than Conclusive Engineering?
Lemberg Solutions (4.8/5) scores higher overall, but "better" depends on your use case. Lemberg Solutions's strongest advantage: 200+ engineers give a hiring team dedicated staff rather than shared generalists spread thin across many clients. Conclusive Engineering's strongest advantage: engineers with prior experience at Cadence Design Systems and iXsystems give a hiring buyer a concrete, checkable background to evaluate.
How do Lemberg Solutions and Conclusive Engineering differ in pricing?
Lemberg Solutions uses firmware consulting, design-phase engagement, full development lifecycle, or staff augmentation pricing. Conclusive Engineering uses design-phase consulting, project-based engineering engagements pricing. Neither firm publishes a full rate card; a discovery call is required for project-specific quotes.
Which is better for enterprise: Lemberg Solutions or Conclusive Engineering?
Conclusive 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 developer before shortlisting.
What are the main differences between Lemberg Solutions and Conclusive Engineering?
Lemberg Solutions's primary differentiator is: 200+ engineers across four countries with direct NXP, STMicroelectronics, and Microchip partner status and an in-house hardware lab. Conclusive Engineering's primary differentiator is: team includes engineers with prior experience at Cadence Design Systems and iXsystems, backed by Nordic Semiconductor and Texas Instruments partner status. They also differ in team size (200+ vs 30–50), minimum engagement (Not published vs Not published), and primary industries served (Healthcare (FDA, HIPAA, IEC 62304, ISO 13485), Energy vs Automotive, Healthcare).
Verify all details directly with each developer before making a decision.