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

Little Giant

Write a Review Claim this Company
4.7/5 (8 reviews)
+6495516959 hello@littlegiant.co.nz Visit Website

About Little Giant

Their multi-disciplined teamwork in real collaboration with their clients to grow their brands & businesses. They become an addition to your team, working with the brand, marketing, and technology to help you win. They have a strategy, creative, media, technology, data, and analytics skills under one roof. This integrated & digitally-led way is the future for businesses in the combined age.

Last updated May 13, 2026

Services

Mobile App Development UI-UX Design Branding E-commerce Development Social Media Marketing SEO Digital Strategy Content Management System

Industries Served

Pharmaceuticals & Biotechnology Nonprofit & NGO Gaming & Gambling Government & Public Sector Automotive Media & Entertainment Retail & E-commerce Logistics & Supply Chain

Little Giant Reviews

Write a Review

A technology investment that delivered returns ahead of the business case we approved

Takashi Morimoto / Director of IT Strategy - Sakura Digital KK
Verified
Apr 15, 2026

Project summary: Serialisation requirements under new traceability legislation had a compliance deadline. Our supply chain system required targeted development to meet it — generalist knowledge was not sufficient.

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.

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

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

4.5
Overall
4.0
Quality
4.5
Schedule
4.0
Cost
4.0
Communication
Project TypeIndustry-Specific Solutions
IndustryPharmaceuticals & Biotechnology
Project Cost$150,000 to $499,999
DurationAug 2025 – Mar 2026

Questions & Answers

Please describe your company, your role, and the industry you operate in.
As Director of IT Strategy at Sakura Digital KK I oversee technology investment and delivery across our Pharmaceuticals & Biotechnology operations in Tokyo, Japan. We are a commercially focused business and our technology choices are always evaluated in terms of their direct contribution to business outcomes rather than technical elegance alone.
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?
The scope covered the full Industry-Specific Solutions 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?
The quality of the questions they asked during the briefing process was the first indicator. Vendors who ask precise questions in the sales phase tend to apply the same rigour during delivery. That hypothesis proved accurate. The technical proposal was substantive, the team structure was senior throughout, and the pricing was transparent.
How clearly did the company understand your requirements and business goals?
Thoroughly and precisely. The requirements document they produced was detailed enough that our QA team used it directly to write acceptance criteria. Every user story had a defined business objective attached. Nothing was left to interpretation. That discipline in the requirements phase paid dividends throughout development and testing.
How was your overall experience with their communication and project management?
The project management framework was the most structured I have experienced with an external vendor. Sprint planning was tight, acceptance criteria were specific, retrospectives were honest and acted on. The project manager treated the shared backlog as a live document and the risk register as an operational tool rather than a compliance artefact. I never had to ask for a status update.
Did the company deliver the project on time and within your expected budget?
The project landed on time. The budget was managed within the agreed ceiling, which included one client-driven scope addition that was quoted fairly and handled without affecting the original delivery stream. The discipline around budget transparency throughout meant there was no surprise at invoice stage.
What tangible results or business impact have you seen since the project was completed?
Quantifying the impact precisely is complicated by other variables in our business, but the metrics we can attribute directly to the Industry-Specific Solutions work are meaningful: session duration up, conversion rate up, error rate down, and our NPS for the digital touchpoint has improved by eleven points. Our account managers report that the new capability is coming up positively in client conversations.
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 Industry-Specific Solutions programme in the Pharmaceuticals & Biotechnology space and will deliver against a serious brief, this is the team.

Implementation delivered with the discipline, documentation, and change management it required

Sebastian Lapointe / CTO - Boreal Systems Inc
Verified
Mar 08, 2026

Project summary: Several years of incremental development had left us with a platform that was technically functional but strategically limiting. A structured rebuild was the agreed path forward.

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.

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

Time zone coordination required some deliberate overlap management from both sides in the first couple of sprints, after which we had an efficient async rhythm that worked for the whole project

4.5
Overall
4.5
Quality
5.0
Schedule
4.0
Cost
5.0
Communication
Project TypeERP Development
IndustryNonprofit & NGO
Project CostLess than $10,000
DurationMay 2025 – Feb 2026

Questions & Answers

Please describe your company, your role, and the industry you operate in.
I lead technology at Boreal Systems Inc, a growth-stage Nonprofit & NGO business based in Toronto, Canada. As CTO 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?
A competitive threat had accelerated our roadmap. We had planned a significant ERP Development investment for the following year. External pressure moved that timeline forward by six months and required us to find an external partner rather than attempting to build internally in the time available.
What services did the company provide for your project?
The core engagement was ERP Development delivery, though their scope expanded to include technical consultancy during discovery that materially improved our requirements. They also took ownership of the third-party integration workstream that had been a coordination challenge in previous projects, removing that complexity from our internal team entirely.
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 ERP Development approach and the evidence base they provided — reference projects in Nonprofit & NGO 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?
Thoroughly and precisely. The requirements document they produced was detailed enough that our QA team used it directly to write acceptance criteria. Every user story had a defined business objective attached. Nothing was left to interpretation. That discipline in the requirements phase paid dividends throughout development and testing.
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?
The project landed on time. The budget was managed within the agreed ceiling, which included one client-driven scope addition that was quoted fairly and handled without affecting the original delivery stream. The discipline around budget transparency throughout meant there was no surprise at invoice stage.
What tangible results or business impact have you seen since the project was completed?
The ROI case we presented to our board was conservative by design. Current performance against the financial model suggests we will hit the projected payback point in under twelve months against an eighteen-month target. The operational efficiency gains in particular have exceeded the model, in part because the quality of the data the new platform generates supports decisions that the previous system could not.
What did you like most about working with this company?
The post-launch behaviour. Some vendors consider go-live to be the end of their professional obligation. This team treated it as the transition to a different kind of engagement. The hypercare period was substantive, the documentation was thorough and genuinely useful, and they checked in proactively at the thirty-day and ninety-day marks to review production metrics with us.
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 Nonprofit & NGO network — in both cases to peers facing ERP Development 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.

Delivered on scope, on time, and with code quality that passed our strictest review

Liselotte Bakker / Head of Platform Engineering - Harbour Digital BV
Verified
Mar 04, 2026

Project summary: The project had a board-facing delivery date tied to a strategic initiative. We needed a partner who would treat that date as their own, not ours.

We gave this team an aggressive timeline, a technically complex scope, and a client-side project team that was stretched thin and not always available at the speed the engagement required. They absorbed all of that gracefully. Where they needed input they were precise about what they needed and when. Where they could proceed independently they did. The result was a delivery that landed on time despite the constraints on our side, which I regard as evidence of genuine professional maturity.

PROS

Deep domain knowledge that reduced the discovery overhead significantly, proactive risk identification before issues became incidents, delivery cadence that our stakeholders found reassuring

CONS

Time zone coordination required some deliberate overlap management from both sides in the first couple of sprints, after which we had an efficient async rhythm that worked for the whole project

4.5
Overall
4.5
Quality
4.5
Schedule
5.0
Cost
4.0
Communication
Project TypeSoftware Development
IndustryGaming & Gambling
Project Cost$10,000 to $49,999
DurationSep 2025 – Feb 2026

Questions & Answers

Please describe your company, your role, and the industry you operate in.
As Head of Platform Engineering at Harbour Digital BV I oversee technology investment and delivery across our Gaming & Gambling operations in Utrecht, Netherlands. We are a commercially focused business and our technology choices are always evaluated in terms of their direct contribution to business outcomes rather than technical elegance alone.
What specific problem or business challenge led you to hire this company?
Regulatory requirements in our Gaming & Gambling segment had changed and the compliance timeline was set by our regulator, not by us. The Software Development changes required were significant enough to justify engaging a specialist partner rather than diverting our internal team from the product roadmap.
What services did the company provide for your project?
End-to-end Software Development delivery with particular depth in the integration and data migration components, which were the highest-risk elements of the programme. They supplemented this with a dedicated QA resource throughout development and a documented runbook for our operations team at handover.
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 Software Development approach and the evidence base they provided — reference projects in Gaming & Gambling 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 Gaming & Gambling 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?
Outstanding. The discipline around asynchronous communication was particularly effective given the time zones involved between Utrecht, Netherlands 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?
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?
Their instinct for keeping the business objective visible throughout technical decision-making. I have worked with technically excellent teams who lose the strategic thread as complexity increases. This team maintained a clear connection between every architectural choice and the outcome we had agreed to achieve. That orientation made the trade-off conversations significantly easier.
Would you recommend this company to others, and would you work with them again?
Unreservedly. We are in active scoping conversations for a second engagement and I expect this to develop into a multi-year partnership. For any organisation in the Gaming & Gambling sector looking for Software Development expertise combined with genuine delivery discipline, I would put this team at the top of the evaluation list.

Project execution that matched the proposal in every dimension that mattered

Nisha Pillai / Director of Engineering - GrowthBridge Ventures
Verified
Feb 12, 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.

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

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

4.0
Overall
4.5
Quality
4.0
Schedule
4.0
Cost
4.0
Communication
Project TypeIndustry-Specific Solutions
IndustryGovernment & Public Sector
Project Cost$150,000 to $499,999
DurationApr 2025 – Nov 2025

Questions & Answers

Please describe your company, your role, and the industry you operate in.
I lead technology at GrowthBridge Ventures, a growth-stage Government & Public Sector business based in Pune, India. As Director of Engineering 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?
The core engagement was Industry-Specific Solutions delivery, though their scope expanded to include technical consultancy during discovery that materially improved our requirements. They also took ownership of the third-party integration workstream that had been a coordination challenge in previous projects, removing that complexity from our internal team entirely.
Why did you choose this company over other providers you considered?
The quality of the questions they asked during the briefing process was the first indicator. Vendors who ask precise questions in the sales phase tend to apply the same rigour during delivery. That hypothesis proved accurate. The technical proposal was substantive, the team structure was senior throughout, and the pricing was transparent.
How clearly did the company understand your requirements and business goals?
Extremely well, in part because they had relevant Government & Public Sector 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?
Outstanding. The discipline around asynchronous communication was particularly effective given the time zones involved between Pune, India 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?
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 ROI case we presented to our board was conservative by design. Current performance against the financial model suggests we will hit the projected payback point in under twelve months against an eighteen-month target. The operational efficiency gains in particular have exceeded the model, in part because the quality of the data the new platform generates supports decisions that the previous system could not.
What did you like most about working with this company?
Their instinct for keeping the business objective visible throughout technical decision-making. I have worked with technically excellent teams who lose the strategic thread as complexity increases. This team maintained a clear connection between every architectural choice and the outcome we had agreed to achieve. That orientation made the trade-off conversations significantly easier.
Would you recommend this company to others, and would you work with them again?
Unreservedly. We are in active scoping conversations for a second engagement and I expect this to develop into a multi-year partnership. For any organisation in the Government & Public Sector sector looking for Industry-Specific Solutions expertise combined with genuine delivery discipline, I would put this team at the top of the evaluation list.

Truly impressed with their expertise and commitment

Yuki Tanaka / CTO - Digital Future KK
Verified
Dec 06, 2023

Project summary: We engaged them to build a comprehensive solution addressing our core operational challenges and growth objectives.

Exceptional work across every dimension. The team understood our complex requirements quickly, asked the right clarifying questions, and delivered a solution that exceeded what we thought was possible within our budget. Project management was tight, communication was excellent, and the quality of the codebase is something our engineers have praised repeatedly. We are already scoping the next phase with them.

PROS

Deep technical expertise, professional project management, responsive support, great value

CONS

Minor timezone overlap challenges early on, resolved quickly with async communication

5.0
Overall
5.0
Quality
5.0
Schedule
5.0
Cost
5.0
Communication
Project TypeEmbedded Systems Development
IndustryAutomotive
Project Cost$10,000 to $49,999
DurationApr 2025 – Aug 2025

Questions & Answers

Please describe your company, your role, and the industry you operate in.
We are a CTO-led organisation operating in the Automotive sector. My role involves overseeing strategic technology decisions and vendor partnerships. We have been growing steadily and needed a trusted partner to help us scale our digital capabilities.
What specific problem or business challenge led you to hire this company?
Our primary challenge was modernising our Automotive operations through Embedded Systems Development. Legacy systems were limiting our agility and we needed a solution that could scale with our growth ambitions and integrate with our existing infrastructure.
What services did the company provide for your project?
They delivered a comprehensive Embedded Systems Development engagement covering requirements analysis, solution architecture, full-cycle development, QA testing, deployment, and post-launch support. The scope was well-defined and executed without scope creep.
Why did you choose this company over other providers you considered?
Their demonstrated expertise in Embedded Systems Development and a strong portfolio of Automotive projects set them apart during our evaluation. The discovery call gave us confidence they truly understood our domain, not just the technology.
How clearly did the company understand your requirements and business goals?
Exceptionally well. They ran a structured discovery process, asked insightful questions, and produced a detailed requirements document that captured nuances we hadn't even articulated ourselves. That foundation made the entire project smoother.
How was your overall experience with their communication and project management?
Outstanding. We had a dedicated project manager, weekly status calls, a shared project board, and same-day responses to queries. There were no surprises — risks were flagged early and resolved before they became issues.
Did the company deliver the project on time and within your expected budget?
Yes, the project was delivered on the agreed date and within budget. Their estimates were realistic and they managed scope carefully, flagging any potential changes before they impacted the timeline or cost.
What tangible results or business impact have you seen since the project was completed?
Significant. Since go-live we have seen measurable improvements in operational efficiency, customer satisfaction scores have risen, and the solution has already paid back a substantial portion of the investment. The team built something we are genuinely proud of.
What did you like most about working with this company?
Their genuine investment in our success. They didn't just execute a spec — they brought ideas, challenged assumptions, and cared about the outcome as much as we did. The quality of the codebase and documentation also stood out.
Would you recommend this company to others, and would you work with them again?
Absolutely and without hesitation. We have already referred two colleagues, and we are actively scoping the next phase of work with them. They are our go-to partner for Embedded Systems Development projects going forward.

Company Info

Founded 2011
Employees 10 - 49
Hourly Rate $25 - $49
Client Rating 4.7/5 (8 reviews)

Rating Breakdown

Quality
4.7
Schedule
4.8
Cost
4.6
Communication
4.6

FAQs

What should I expect to pay to work with Little Giant?
What Little Giant 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, Little Giant's typical hourly rate is around $25 - $49, with an average project cost of $5000000+.
Is Little Giant more of an offshore setup or a local team?
That depends on where Little Giant is based and who they primarily serve — some firms like this operate fully offshore, some are local-first, and plenty run a hybrid model that mixes both. For context, it has experience across industries such as Retail & E-commerce, Logistics & Supply Chain, Media & Entertainment, Automotive, Government & Public Sector and Gaming & Gambling, and it has served clients in New-zealand.
What are the actual contract options if I want to work with Little Giant?
Most companies structured like Little Giant give you a choice between a fixed-price contract, a dedicated team arrangement, or time-and-materials billing, so you can pick whichever lines up with your budget and how well-defined your scope already is. For context, its listed capabilities span Branding, Content Management System, Digital Strategy, E-commerce Development and Mobile App Development, and it reports a team size of 10 - 49 professionals.
Does Little Giant only work locally, or take on clients elsewhere too?
Little Giant isn't necessarily limited to one region and may take on clients across several countries, including New-zealand, depending on market demand and business partnerships.
What makes Little Giant worth considering over other options?
What tends to set Little Giant apart usually comes down to some mix of technical depth, relevant industry experience, how clients describe working with them, their development approach, communication habits, and whether they can actually deliver something that scales. Founded in 2011, the company has built a track record of delivering projects across various industries.
What kinds of industries has Little Giant actually built for?
Little Giant has delivered projects across a range of different industries, including Retail & E-commerce, Logistics & Supply Chain, Media & Entertainment, Automotive, Government & Public Sector and Gaming & Gambling.
How do I actually get a real proposal out of Little Giant instead of a generic reply?
The most reliable route is giving Little Giant 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 experience across industries such as Retail & E-commerce, Logistics & Supply Chain, Media & Entertainment, Automotive, Government & Public Sector and Gaming & Gambling, and it has been operating since 2011.
What kind of software work does Little Giant take on?
Little Giant 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 Branding, Content Management System, Digital Strategy, E-commerce Development and Mobile App Development.
What's actually in Little Giant's technical toolkit?
The exact stack shifts by project, but Little Giant commonly works across things like React, Angular, Vue.js, Node.js, Python, .NET, Java, PHP, Flutter, React Native, native iOS and Android, and cloud platforms like AWS and Azure. For context, its listed capabilities span Branding, Content Management System, Digital Strategy, E-commerce Development and Mobile App Development, and it has experience across industries such as Retail & E-commerce, Logistics & Supply Chain, Media & Entertainment, Automotive, Government & Public Sector and Gaming & Gambling.

Similar Companies

Nearby Companies