About Big Wave Development
Their expertise is mobile application development. They have great experience to develop mobile applications. Really they always help to make your product to life, then sustain and improve it. They have creative designers who make an amazing design. Big Wave Development is a good mobile app development company. They believe active and code much fast. Their mobile developers also work in agile sprints.
Last updated May 13, 2026
Services
Industries Served
Big Wave Development Reviews
Write a ReviewFrom legacy on-premise to cloud-native in a timeline the vendor community said was impossible
Nisha Pillai / Director of Engineering - GrowthBridge VenturesJun 08, 2026
Project summary: Our trading platform had been extended incrementally for seven years. Latency was degrading, technical debt was compounding, and a clean rebuild was no longer optional.
Six months after go-live our platform is processing three times the transaction volume we specified in the original brief. The architecture choices made during discovery accommodated that growth without remediation work. That is the difference between a team that designs for what you tell them and a team that designs for what you are likely to need. We are in conversation about a Phase 2 engagement and I expect to be using this partnership for several years.
Production system that has performed as specified since go-live without remediation work, documentation thorough enough to support internal maintenance, knowledge transfer that left our team genuinely capable
Pipeline availability for kickoff required a few weeks of lead time — in hindsight that selection pressure means you are working with a team that is in demand for the right reasons
Questions & Answers
Data platform that turned five years of siloed records into a unified analytical asset
Zara Hussain / Head of Technology - Ravi Digital AgencyMay 26, 2026
Project summary: Our actuarial models had outgrown the reporting infrastructure feeding them. Data latency was introducing risk into pricing decisions that the business had decided it could no longer accept.
The project brief was ambitious and we had received proposals ranging from two to five times our eventual budget from other vendors. This team came back with a proposal that was commercially realistic and technically credible — and then delivered against it. That alignment between proposal and outcome is not something I take for granted. I have been on the other side of it enough times to know it requires both honesty in the sales process and discipline in delivery. We experienced both.
Production system that has performed as specified since go-live without remediation work, documentation thorough enough to support internal maintenance, knowledge transfer that left our team genuinely capable
Their insistence on a detailed functional specification before development began felt like friction at the time. In retrospect, it was the reason the development phase ran without the ambiguity that has derailed similar projects for us previously
Questions & Answers
E-commerce build that united our digital and in-store inventory for the first time
Tobias Lindemann / Leiter Digitalisierung - Lindemann Industrie GmbHApr 01, 2026
Project summary: Our trading platform had been extended incrementally for seven years. Latency was degrading, technical debt was compounding, and a clean rebuild was no longer optional.
Six months after go-live our platform is processing three times the transaction volume we specified in the original brief. The architecture choices made during discovery accommodated that growth without remediation work. That is the difference between a team that designs for what you tell them and a team that designs for what you are likely to need. We are in conversation about a Phase 2 engagement and I expect to be using this partnership for several years.
Architectural decisions designed for longevity rather than just the current brief, thorough automated test coverage, post-launch stability that validated every technical choice made during discovery
We underestimated the input required from our subject matter experts during the requirements phase. The team flagged this early but our resource planning did not fully reflect it — our responsibility, not theirs
Questions & Answers
Technically rigorous, commercially grounded, and a genuine pleasure to work with
Matthieu Renard / Directeur Technique - Lumière Technologies SASFeb 28, 2026
Project summary: A previous engagement had delivered something that worked in staging and struggled in production. We approached this project with greater rigour in vendor selection as a result.
Our stakeholder group included board members, clinical leads, compliance officers, and end users — each with different technical literacy and different success criteria. This team navigated that stakeholder landscape as well as any vendor I have seen. They adjusted their communication register depending on the audience without losing the substance. They managed expectations honestly throughout. And they delivered a system that each group can point to as meeting their requirements. That breadth is genuinely uncommon.
Delivery timeline that proved achievable rather than optimistic, estimation accuracy that reflected real analysis rather than competitive bidding, scope discipline that prevented the feature creep we had experienced before
Their insistence on a detailed functional specification before development began felt like friction at the time. In retrospect, it was the reason the development phase ran without the ambiguity that has derailed similar projects for us previously
Questions & Answers
Technically rigorous, commercially grounded, and a genuine pleasure to work with
Danielle Westbrook / Chief Digital Officer - BlueSky Retail HoldingsFeb 13, 2026
Project summary: Cross-agency data sharing had been blocked by incompatible systems for four years. A secure integration platform was the prerequisite for every transformation initiative in our roadmap.
We had worked with three agencies before this engagement. The comparison is not flattering to the others. What distinguished this team was a systematic approach to understanding the problem before proposing a solution — something that sounds obvious and is practiced far less often than it should be. The delivery phase ran to schedule, the codebase is clean enough that our internal engineers made positive comments during handover review, and we have not logged a critical incident in five months of live operation. We intend to use them for our next phase of work.
Clear and consistent communication adapted appropriately for both technical and non-technical stakeholders, shared tooling that gave our team real-time visibility, reliable sprint delivery throughout
The quality of documentation they produce means our team needed to set aside dedicated review time to do it justice — a minor scheduling point rather than a genuine criticism