Home Top Developers Blog Write For Us Write a Review Sign In Create Account Request a Quote

FUTURO

Write a Review Claim this Company
4.5/5 (7 reviews)
+380953478998 hello@futuro.team Visit Website

About FUTURO

They understand each other and the better is the product they create. They apply this both to their internal team and clients. That’s why we always prefer a long time partnership. They analyze, ask questions, offer the most relevant solutions at every stage of the project. Their team has deep expertise in transforming ideas into successful and powerful technology resolutions to optimize your current processes and boost profits.

Last updated May 13, 2026

Services

Mobile App Development Web Development UI-UX Design Web Design Blockchain Development

Industries Served

Telecommunications Legal Services Gaming & Gambling Healthcare Human Resources Mining & Metals

FUTURO Reviews

Write a Review

Sensor network and analytics layer built by engineers who understood both halves equally

Priya Chandrasekaran / VP of Data & AI - Wavefront Analytics Inc
Verified
Jan 13, 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.

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.

PROS

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

CONS

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

4.5
Overall
4.5
Quality
4.5
Schedule
4.0
Cost
5.0
Communication
Project TypeIoT Development
IndustryGaming & Gambling
Project Cost$50,000 to $149,999
DurationMay 2025 – Nov 2025

Questions & Answers

Please describe your company, your role, and the industry you operate in.
I lead technology at Wavefront Analytics Inc, a growth-stage Gaming & Gambling business based in Seattle, USA. As VP of Data & AI my remit spans product engineering, platform operations, and strategic vendor partnerships. We had reached an inflection point where our internal capacity was not sufficient to execute our roadmap at the pace our market required.
What specific problem or business challenge led you to hire this company?
Our platform had been maintained by a previous vendor for three years and the accumulated technical debt had reached a point where delivery velocity had dropped to a fraction of what it should have been. We needed fresh engineering expertise and a structured plan to address the underlying issues.
What services did the company provide for your project?
Primarily IoT Development, with adjacent work in solution architecture and quality assurance. They were responsible for the full build from requirements through to go-live, including integration with four existing systems in our technology landscape. The breadth they covered without requiring additional vendors was commercially and logistically valuable.
Why did you choose this company over other providers you considered?
A trusted peer in the Gaming & Gambling sector had used them for a comparable IoT Development engagement and their recommendation was unequivocal. Our own due diligence confirmed the pattern they described. The combination of domain knowledge, IoT Development depth, and demonstrated delivery discipline was the deciding factor.
How clearly did the company understand your requirements and business goals?
Better than we managed ourselves going in. The workshops they facilitated surfaced assumptions we had not examined and exposed three requirements that were in direct conflict with each other. Resolving those before development began saved us what would certainly have been significant rework later in the project.
How was your overall experience with their communication and project management?
Outstanding. The discipline around asynchronous communication was particularly effective given the time zones involved between Seattle, USA and the delivery team. Written updates were specific and consistent, response times were same-day for anything that required a decision, and nothing fell through the cracks across a six-month engagement.
Did the company deliver the project on time and within your expected budget?
Yes. I had privately built a contingency expectation into my planning given the project complexity and the number of integrations involved. None of that contingency was needed. The delivery landed on the agreed date and the final invoice matched the approved budget to within a fraction of a percent. That outcome is rarer than the industry acknowledges.
What tangible results or business impact have you seen since the project was completed?
We went live four months ago. User adoption exceeded the target we had set by 23 percent in the first month. Support ticket volume has dropped measurably. The features we had deferred because the previous architecture made them prohibitively expensive to build are now in development. The platform they built has opened our roadmap.
What did you like most about working with this company?
The willingness to be direct. When our requirements were unclear they said so. When our priorities were contradictory they explained why. When a technical approach we had assumed was the right one turned out to have significant downsides, they told us before we had committed to it. That kind of intellectual honesty is what I look for in a long-term technology partner.
Would you recommend this company to others, and would you work with them again?
Yes. I would add the context that this is not the cheapest option in the market and they are selective about the engagements they take on. If your primary criterion is price, there are alternatives. If you want a technology partner who can be trusted with a complex IoT Development programme in the Gaming & Gambling space and will deliver against a serious brief, this is the team.

IT partner embedded deeply enough to understand our business, not just our ticket queue

Théo Beaumont / VP of Innovation - Laurentian Tech Partners
Verified
Jan 09, 2026

Project summary: Our engineering capacity was committed to maintaining existing systems and could not absorb a net-new build of this complexity. An external partner with the right skills was the only viable option.

What made the most difference in practice was the quality of the engineering judgment on this team. Not the ability to execute a specification — that is a baseline expectation. The ability to recognise when a specification was suboptimal, explain why, propose an alternative, and support the client in making a decision about it. That consultative dimension elevated the output beyond what the brief described and resulted in a product that is more fit for purpose than the one we had originally specified.

PROS

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

CONS

The engagement was priced at the quality level rather than the budget level. We evaluated the alternatives and concluded that the delta was a reasonable premium for the reduction in delivery risk

4.5
Overall
5.0
Quality
4.5
Schedule
4.5
Cost
5.0
Communication
Project TypeIT Managed Services
IndustryMining & Metals
Project Cost$50,000 to $149,999
DurationApr 2025 – Dec 2025

Questions & Answers

Please describe your company, your role, and the industry you operate in.
Laurentian Tech Partners is an established Mining & Metals organisation headquartered in Montreal, Canada. My role as VP of Innovation covers both strategic planning and operational technology delivery. We maintain high standards for our vendors because our clients hold us to high standards — a bar we expect our partners to meet.
What specific problem or business challenge led you to hire this company?
We had a defined product vision for our next phase of growth in the Mining & Metals market but lacked the engineering depth internally to execute it. The IT Managed Services requirements in particular required specialist experience that we could not realistically recruit for on the timeline our business plan required.
What services did the company provide for your project?
The scope covered the full IT Managed Services lifecycle: discovery and requirements definition, solution architecture, iterative development across twelve sprints, integration testing, performance validation, production deployment, and a structured four-week hypercare period. They also provided system documentation and a knowledge transfer programme for our internal team.
Why did you choose this company over other providers you considered?
We ran a structured shortlisting process across five vendors. The technical evaluation eliminated two immediately. Of the remaining three, this team's proposal was differentiated by the specificity of their IT Managed Services approach and the evidence base they provided — reference projects in Mining & Metals contexts, not generic case studies. The reference calls confirmed a track record that the proposal had described accurately.
How clearly did the company understand your requirements and business goals?
Extremely well, in part because they had relevant Mining & Metals experience that reduced the context-setting overhead significantly. They understood the domain vocabulary, asked the right questions, and translated business requirements into technical specifications with a fidelity that meant the development phase had very few clarification cycles.
How was your overall experience with their communication and project management?
Communication was proactive, timely, and appropriately calibrated. Technical updates for the engineering audience, executive summaries for the steering group, risk flags with proposed mitigations rather than just problem statements. The fortnightly sprint reviews gave our stakeholders visibility without requiring them to attend every working session.
Did the company deliver the project on time and within your expected budget?
On time and within the approved budget. The estimation accuracy was notable — they had broken the work down in sufficient detail during discovery that their forecast proved reliable throughout, rather than being a number that shifted with every change in scope. We received one change request and it was for scope we had introduced ourselves.
What tangible results or business impact have you seen since the project was completed?
The most direct measure is the performance of the system in production. In the five months since go-live we have had zero P1 incidents, our page performance scores have improved across every Core Web Vitals metric, and two enterprise clients who had cited our previous platform limitations during contract negotiations have since renewed without that objection arising.
What did you like most about working with this company?
The willingness to be direct. When our requirements were unclear they said so. When our priorities were contradictory they explained why. When a technical approach we had assumed was the right one turned out to have significant downsides, they told us before we had committed to it. That kind of intellectual honesty is what I look for in a long-term technology partner.
Would you recommend this company to others, and would you work with them again?
Yes, without reservation. I have already made two direct referrals within my Mining & Metals network — in both cases to peers facing IT Managed Services challenges similar to ours. I gave those referrals with confidence because I knew the experience I described was reproducible, not the result of exceptional circumstances on our engagement.

Company Info

Founded 2017
Employees 10 - 49
Hourly Rate N/A
Client Rating 4.5/5 (7 reviews)

Rating Breakdown

Quality
4.7
Schedule
4.4
Cost
4.2
Communication
4.7

FAQs

Does FUTURO actually build with AI, or just talk about it?
Plenty of modern software teams, FUTURO included, now build real AI and machine learning features — chatbots, predictive models, computer vision, and automation that goes beyond simple rule-based scripts. For context, it has served clients in USA, and its typical hourly rate is around N/A.
What should I actually be looking at when comparing a company like FUTURO to others?
When you're weighing up a software partner such as FUTURO, it's worth looking past the pitch and checking the portfolio, what past clients say, relevant industry background, technical range, how they communicate, pricing structure, project management style, and what support looks like after launch. For context, it has served clients in USA, and it has experience across industries such as Legal Services, Telecommunications, Human Resources, Gaming & Gambling, Healthcare and Mining & Metals.
What kinds of industries has FUTURO actually built for?
FUTURO has delivered projects across a range of different industries, including Legal Services, Telecommunications, Human Resources, Gaming & Gambling, Healthcare and Mining & Metals.
What's the easiest way to actually get in touch with FUTURO?
Most businesses reach FUTURO through its website, a direct email, or a contact form — any of which works for discussing what you need, booking an initial conversation, or asking for a rough estimate. For context, it has experience across industries such as Legal Services, Telecommunications, Human Resources, Gaming & Gambling, Healthcare and Mining & Metals, and it has been operating since 2017.
What should I expect to pay to work with FUTURO?
What FUTURO charges comes down to a handful of variables — how complex the project is, the number of development hours involved, the tech stack required, team size, and which engagement model you pick. Based on available data, FUTURO's typical hourly rate is around N/A, with an average project cost of $50000+.
Can I just hire developers from FUTURO to sit alongside my own team?
Usually, yes — a dedicated developer arrangement is a common option with firms like FUTURO, where you get engineers working exclusively on your project as an extension of your in-house team rather than as a separate outsourced unit. For context, it has served clients in USA, and it reports a team size of 10 - 49 professionals.
What happens with FUTURO after the project actually launches?
Like most established software teams, FUTURO typically sticks around post-launch for ongoing maintenance — bug fixes, performance tuning, security patching, new feature work, and general technical support. For context, it has served clients in USA, and its listed capabilities span Blockchain Development, Mobile App Development, UI-UX Design, Web Design and Web Development.
How do I actually get a real proposal out of FUTURO instead of a generic reply?
The most reliable route is giving FUTURO a clear, specific brief up front — through their website form, a direct email, or a call — since a vague ask tends to get a vague answer back, while a concrete one usually gets a proper estimate. For context, it has served clients in USA, and it has been operating since 2017.
What kind of software work does FUTURO take on?
FUTURO typically covers the standard range of software development work — mobile apps, web platforms, custom internal tools, UI/UX design, cloud infrastructure, AI integrations, and larger enterprise builds. Its core focus areas include Blockchain Development, Mobile App Development, UI-UX Design, Web Design and Web Development.
Does FUTURO only work locally, or take on clients elsewhere too?
FUTURO isn't necessarily limited to one region and may take on clients across several countries, including USA, depending on market demand and business partnerships.

Similar Companies

Nearby Companies