NOVO Engineering vs EES: full comparison for 2026
Quick verdict
NOVO Engineering (4.1/5) edges ahead of EES (3.8/5) overall. NOVO Engineering is the better choice for teams wanting engineers with an unusually high average tenure across disciplines. EES is the stronger option for teams deliberately avoiding a large delivery organization in favor of senior-led staff. The right choice depends on your project size, budget, and required tech stack.
NOVO Engineering vs EES: head-to-head summary
| Criterion | NOVO Engineering | EES |
|---|---|---|
| Founded | 2004 | 2012 |
| HQ | Vista, CA, USA | Tempe / Chandler, AZ, USA |
| Team size | 48–60 | 3–50 |
| Rating | 4.1 / 5 | 3.8 / 5 |
| Primary differentiator | Engineering team averaging 16 years of experience per engineer, a specific and checkable seniority claim | Explicitly positions itself as senior-led, keeping the team small by design rather than as a growth-stage limitation |
| Pricing model | Fixed-scope product engineering engagements | Contract engineering engagements |
| Min. engagement | Not published | Not published |
| Primary tech stack | C, C++, Embedded Systems Programming | C, C++, Industrial Embedded Systems |
| Industries served | Medical devices, Biotech, Printing technology, Commercial products | Industrial |
NOVO Engineering vs EES: 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 a team reported between 48 and 60 engineers averaging 16 years of experience each. That average-tenure figure is a specific, checkable claim a hiring buyer can weigh directly: it means the typical engineer assigned to a project has already spent over a decade and a half solving comparable problems. Systems engineering scope means firmware roles work alongside mechanical and electrical engineers on the same team, not in a separate silo.
EES
Embedded Engineering Solutions (EES) was launched in 2012 and is based in Tempe, Arizona, with reported headcount varying across sources from roughly 3 to 50 employees, most consistently described as a small, senior-led firm. The company specializes in contract firmware, embedded systems, and hardware design engineering for the industrial sector, and its own positioning leans on being senior-led rather than layered with junior staff. For a hiring buyer specifically avoiding a large delivery organization, that's the stated value proposition, not an incidental trait.
Services and capabilities: NOVO Engineering vs EES
| Capability | NOVO Engineering | EES |
|---|---|---|
| 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: NOVO Engineering vs EES
| Framework / platform | NOVO Engineering | EES |
|---|---|---|
| C | ✓ | ✓ |
| C++ | ✓ | ✓ |
| FreeRTOS | N/A | N/A |
| Zephyr | N/A | N/A |
| FPGA | N/A | N/A |
| Embedded Linux | N/A | N/A |
| LVGL | N/A | N/A |
| AWS IoT | N/A | N/A |
| ARM Cortex-M | N/A | N/A |
Pricing comparison: NOVO Engineering vs EES
| Criterion | NOVO Engineering | EES |
|---|---|---|
| Minimum engagement | Not published | Not published |
| Engagement models | Fixed-scope product engineering, Pre-production manufacturing support | Contract firmware and hardware engineering |
| Rate transparency | Not public | Not public |
| Price tier | Mid-market | Mid-market |
Target audience comparison: NOVO Engineering vs EES
| Dimension | NOVO Engineering | EES |
|---|---|---|
| Best company size | Startup to mid-market | Startup to mid-market |
| Best industries | Medical devices, Biotech, Printing technology | Industrial |
| Best use cases | Hiring a multi-discipline team spanning mechanical, electrical, and firmware, Biotech instrumentation development needing senior, cross-discipline engineers | Hiring a deliberately small, senior-led team for an industrial firmware program, Combined hardware and firmware engineering without separate specialist vendors |
| Typical project type | Fixed-scope product engineering | Contract firmware and hardware engineering |
NOVO Engineering vs EES: pros and cons
| NOVO Engineering | |
|---|---|
| + | Engineering team averages 16 years of experience per engineer, a specific, checkable seniority claim |
| + | Systems engineering scope puts firmware engineers on the same team as mechanical and electrical staff, not a separate silo |
| + | Two US locations near San Diego and Minneapolis give onsite coverage options |
| + | 21 years of operating history in medical device and biotech instrumentation work |
| - | 48 to 60 engineers caps how many large concurrent programs the team can staff at once |
| - | No published pricing or minimum engagement figure |
| - | Firmware is one discipline inside a broader systems-engineering team, not a standalone firmware-only group |
| EES | |
|---|---|
| + | Explicit senior-led positioning means the small team size is a deliberate choice, not just a growth-stage limitation |
| + | 13 years of operating history as a contract engineering firm for the industrial sector |
| + | Combines firmware, embedded systems, and hardware design in one team, covering multiple disciplines without separate specialist hires |
| + | Small size means a client's engagement represents a meaningful share of the firm's total capacity |
| - | Reported employee counts vary widely across sources, from roughly 3 to 50, worth confirming current headcount directly |
| - | Small team size caps capacity for a large or multi-workstream program |
| - | No published pricing or minimum engagement figure |
Who should choose NOVO Engineering?
A typical fit: hiring a multi-discipline team spanning mechanical, electrical, and firmware.
Engineering team averaging 16 years of experience per engineer, a specific and checkable seniority claim. Minimum engagement is not publicly disclosed. Works best with clients in Medical devices, Biotech, Printing technology, Commercial products.
Who should choose EES?
A typical fit: hiring a deliberately small, senior-led team for an industrial firmware program.
Explicitly positions itself as senior-led, keeping the team small by design rather than as a growth-stage limitation. Minimum engagement is not publicly disclosed. Works best with clients in Industrial.
Decision matrix: NOVO Engineering vs EES
| 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 EES (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 EES
| Use case | NOVO Engineering fit | EES fit | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hiring a multi-discipline team spanning mechanical, electrical, and firmware | Strong | Strong | Both equally |
| Biotech instrumentation development needing senior, cross-discipline engineers | Strong | Limited | NOVO Engineering |
| Hiring a deliberately small, senior-led team for an industrial firmware program | Strong | Strong | Both equally |
| Combined hardware and firmware engineering without separate specialist vendors | Limited | Strong | EES |
| Fixed-price build | Limited | Limited | Both equally |
| Staff augmentation | Limited | Limited | Both equally |
Verdict: NOVO Engineering vs EES
NOVO Engineering (4.1/5) is the stronger overall choice for most Embedded Firmware Development projects. Engineering team averaging 16 years of experience per engineer, a specific and checkable seniority claim.
EES (3.8/5) is worth a look if you need combined hardware and firmware engineering without separate specialist vendors. If your situation matches that, EES is a competitive option.
Related comparisons
NOVO Engineering vs EES FAQ
Is NOVO Engineering better than EES?
NOVO Engineering (4.1/5) scores higher overall, but "better" depends on your use case. NOVO Engineering's strongest advantage: engineering team averages 16 years of experience per engineer, a specific, checkable seniority claim. EES's strongest advantage: explicit senior-led positioning means the small team size is a deliberate choice, not just a growth-stage limitation.
How do NOVO Engineering and EES differ in pricing?
NOVO Engineering uses fixed-scope product engineering engagements pricing. EES uses contract engineering 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 EES?
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 developer before shortlisting.
What are the main differences between NOVO Engineering and EES?
NOVO Engineering's primary differentiator is: engineering team averaging 16 years of experience per engineer, a specific and checkable seniority claim. EES's primary differentiator is: explicitly positions itself as senior-led, keeping the team small by design rather than as a growth-stage limitation. They also differ in team size (48–60 vs 3–50), minimum engagement (Not published vs Not published), and primary industries served (Medical devices, Biotech vs Industrial).
Verify all details directly with each developer before making a decision.