Revelry Labs Reviews

A partnership that began with a single project and earned a place on our preferred vendor list

Vikram Srinivasan / Head of Platform - Cascade EdTech Solutions

Verified
May 20, 2026

Project summary: Our internal product thinking was strong but our execution capability in this specific technology domain was limited. We needed depth, not generalism.

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.

PROS

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

CONS

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

5.0

Overall

5.0

Quality

4.5

Schedule

4.5

Cost

5.0

Communication

Project TypeEmbedded Systems Development

IndustryAerospace & Defense

Project CostLess than $10,000

DurationSep 2025 – Apr 2026

Questions & Answers

Please describe your company, your role, and the industry you operate in.

Cascade EdTech Solutions operates in the Aerospace & Defense sector with headquarters in Chennai, India. In my role as Head of Platform I am accountable for the full technology agenda — infrastructure, product, and vendor relationships. We are a commercially driven organisation and every technology decision is evaluated against a clear business case before it is approved.

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?

End-to-end Embedded Systems 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?

A trusted peer in the Aerospace & Defense sector had used them for a comparable Embedded Systems Development engagement and their recommendation was unequivocal. Our own due diligence confirmed the pattern they described. The combination of domain knowledge, Embedded Systems Development depth, and demonstrated delivery discipline was the deciding factor.

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?

Yes to both. There was a single sprint where a dependency on a third-party API introduced a one-week delay. The team identified it three weeks in advance, presented two mitigation options, and we agreed on an approach that recovered the schedule within the same sprint cycle. That level of foresight is what separates good project management from reactive problem management.

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 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?

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 Aerospace & Defense sector looking for Embedded Systems Development expertise combined with genuine delivery discipline, I would put this team at the top of the evaluation list.

The outcome we specified, delivered the way we needed it, by people we would hire again

Liselotte Bakker / Head of Platform Engineering - Harbour Digital BV

Verified
Apr 12, 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.

The technical quality of the final deliverable is the easiest thing to point to. The automated test coverage is thorough, the deployment pipeline is reliable, the documentation is genuinely useful rather than ceremonially produced. But the metric I keep returning to is the number of post-launch conversations we have not had to have. No incident calls at two in the morning. No emergency patches. No retrospective discussions about what went wrong. The absence of those events is the evidence I would show to someone considering this vendor.

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

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

4.0

Quality

4.5

Schedule

4.5

Cost

5.0

Communication

Project TypeEmbedded Systems Development

IndustryFashion & Apparel

Project Cost$10,000 to $49,999

DurationDec 2025 – Mar 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 Fashion & Apparel 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?

A competitive threat had accelerated our roadmap. We had planned a significant Embedded Systems 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 scope covered the full Embedded Systems Development 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 Embedded Systems Development approach and the evidence base they provided — reference projects in Fashion & Apparel 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?

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 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 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 continuity of the team. The engineers who participated in the discovery sessions were the engineers who built the system. That consistency of institutional knowledge across a six-month project has a value that is difficult to quantify but easy to notice when it is absent. Every conversation built on the previous ones.

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 Fashion & Apparel sector looking for Embedded Systems Development expertise combined with genuine delivery discipline, I would put this team at the top of the evaluation list.

A partnership that began with a single project and earned a place on our preferred vendor list

Flynn Buchanan / GM of Technology - Pacific Rim Commerce Group

Verified
Mar 21, 2026

Project summary: Our internal product thinking was strong but our execution capability in this specific technology domain was limited. We needed depth, not generalism.

The technical quality of the final deliverable is the easiest thing to point to. The automated test coverage is thorough, the deployment pipeline is reliable, the documentation is genuinely useful rather than ceremonially produced. But the metric I keep returning to is the number of post-launch conversations we have not had to have. No incident calls at two in the morning. No emergency patches. No retrospective discussions about what went wrong. The absence of those events is the evidence I would show to someone considering this vendor.

PROS

Senior-level engineering presence throughout the entire project, not just during the pitch, honest and commercially fair handling of scope changes, codebase that our internal team praised on review

CONS

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

5.0

Overall

5.0

Quality

5.0

Schedule

5.0

Cost

4.5

Communication

Project TypeEmbedded Systems Development

IndustryNonprofit & NGO

Project Cost$50,000 to $149,999

DurationJun 2025 – Jan 2026

Questions & Answers

Please describe your company, your role, and the industry you operate in.

Pacific Rim Commerce Group is an established Nonprofit & NGO organisation headquartered in Perth, Australia. My role as GM of Technology 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 Nonprofit & NGO market but lacked the engineering depth internally to execute it. The Embedded Systems Development 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?

End-to-end Embedded Systems 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?

A trusted peer in the Nonprofit & NGO sector had used them for a comparable Embedded Systems Development engagement and their recommendation was unequivocal. Our own due diligence confirmed the pattern they described. The combination of domain knowledge, Embedded Systems Development depth, and demonstrated delivery discipline was the deciding factor.

How clearly did the company understand your requirements and business goals?

Extremely well, in part because they had relevant Nonprofit & NGO 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 Perth, Australia 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?

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?

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?

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?

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 Embedded Systems Development programme in the Nonprofit & NGO space and will deliver against a serious brief, this is the team.

Virtual environment that our remote team now uses as their primary collaboration space

Eoghan Fitzgerald / VP of Engineering - Shannon Tech Solutions Ltd

Verified
Feb 11, 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.

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.

PROS

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

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

4.0

Quality

5.0

Schedule

4.5

Cost

5.0

Communication

Project TypeAR/VR Development

IndustryConstruction

Project CostLess than $10,000

DurationSep 2025 – Dec 2025

Questions & Answers

Please describe your company, your role, and the industry you operate in.

As VP of Engineering at Shannon Tech Solutions Ltd I oversee technology investment and delivery across our Construction operations in Dublin, Ireland. 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?

A competitive threat had accelerated our roadmap. We had planned a significant AR/VR 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 AR/VR 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 AR/VR Development approach and the evidence base they provided — reference projects in Construction 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 Construction 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?

Professional and efficient. The project manager maintained a clear view of the critical path at all times and communicated changes to it transparently. The one significant scope adjustment we made mid-project was handled through a clean change request process — fairly priced, clearly documented, and absorbed without disrupting the overall timeline.

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?

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 continuity of the team. The engineers who participated in the discovery sessions were the engineers who built the system. That consistency of institutional knowledge across a six-month project has a value that is difficult to quantify but easy to notice when it is absent. Every conversation built on the previous ones.

Would you recommend this company to others, and would you work with them again?

Absolutely. With a specific note that the value starts in the discovery phase — clients who approach that process with seriousness will get the most from the engagement. We invested appropriately at the front end and the returns are evident in what was delivered.

Service desk that outperformed our previous in-house team on every SLA we tracked

Aarav Mehta / Chief Data Officer - Zenith FinServ Ltd

Verified
Feb 02, 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.

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

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

4.0

Quality

4.0

Schedule

4.5

Cost

4.0

Communication

Project TypeIT Managed Services

IndustryAerospace & Defense

Project Cost$500,000+

DurationApr 2025 – Nov 2025

Questions & Answers

Please describe your company, your role, and the industry you operate in.

Zenith FinServ Ltd is an established Aerospace & Defense organisation headquartered in Bangalore, India. My role as Chief Data Officer 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 Aerospace & Defense 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 core engagement was IT Managed Services 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 had a failed engagement behind us and were more rigorous in our selection process as a result. We asked detailed questions about how they managed scope change, how they handled estimation, and how they communicated problems. The answers were specific, evidenced, and consistent across the team members we spoke to. That gave us confidence that the process was real rather than rehearsed.

How clearly did the company understand your requirements and business goals?

Comprehensively. The discovery phase they ran was more thorough than anything we had experienced with previous vendors. They challenged requirements that were vague or contradictory, proposed alternatives where our initial thinking was limiting, and produced a functional specification that our internal stakeholders agreed was the clearest articulation of the product they had seen written down.

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 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?

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 Aerospace & Defense sector looking for IT Managed Services expertise combined with genuine delivery discipline, I would put this team at the top of the evaluation list.

Proactive support that resolved a network issue at two in the morning before anyone arrived at the office

Maja Söderström / Head of Product Engineering - Scandia Digital AB

Verified
Jan 17, 2026

Project summary: As a technology business ourselves we apply the same scrutiny to our vendor selection that our clients apply to us. We needed a delivery partner who could meet a standard we would be comfortable being measured against.

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.

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

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

4.5

Overall

5.0

Quality

4.5

Schedule

4.5

Cost

4.5

Communication

Project TypeIT Managed Services

IndustryInformation Technology

Project Cost$500,000+

DurationMay 2025 – Oct 2025

Questions & Answers

Please describe your company, your role, and the industry you operate in.

Scandia Digital AB is an established Information Technology organisation headquartered in Gothenburg, Sweden. My role as Head of Product Engineering 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?

Regulatory requirements in our Information Technology segment had changed and the compliance timeline was set by our regulator, not by us. The IT Managed Services 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 IT Managed Services 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.