FÃÂonta
Overall Review Rating
4.5 (6 Ratings)
Services
- ERP Development
- Private Blockchains
- Cross Platform Development
- AngularJS Development
- E-Commerce
- Mobile App Development
- Android App Development
- Content Marketing
- Platform Development
- Web Development
- iOS App Development
- Hyperledger
Industries Served
FÃÂonta Reviews
Have a look at these client reviews on previously delivered projects.
Rupert Ashford
Director of eCommerce - Hargrove Retail PLCProactive monitoring prevented an issue that would have cost us a trading day
Three months post-launch our key metrics are all moving in the right direction — user adoption ahead of target, support volume down, time-on-task reduced for our core workflows. The product team has started planning features that were never viable on the previous platform. That is the real proof of the investment: it opened up possibilities rather than just replacing what was there before.
Project summary
Our audience data sat in eight different tools with no shared identity. Personalisation was impossible without first solving that foundation problem.
Declan Hartley
Chief Digital Officer - Southern Cross TechnologyThey understood the difference between AI that demos well and AI that runs in prod
Looking back, what strikes me most is how little drama there was. Real technology projects have problems. This one had them too — but every problem was flagged before it became a crisis, every scope change was handled through a proper process, and every risk was managed rather than buried. Our project manager said it was the smoothest vendor engagement he had been involved in. Given how complex the technical requirements were, I think that reflects genuine delivery maturity.
Project summary
Our field service scheduling ran on a system that predated smartphones. Technician productivity was suffering and customer satisfaction scores reflected it.
Jordan Fischer
Director of Engineering - Mesa Technologies IncFirst vendor to explain the model clearly enough that our non-technical leadership got it
The technical quality is the obvious thing to highlight. The automated test suite is comprehensive, the deployment pipeline is solid, and the documentation is actually useful rather than written to satisfy a checklist. But the metric I keep coming back to is what has NOT happened since go-live. No 2am incident calls. No emergency patches. No post-launch retrospectives about what went wrong. For a system of this complexity, that outcome is exactly what we paid for.
Project summary
Our competitors' checkout experience was noticeably better than ours. Customers mentioned it in return surveys. We needed to close that gap before the next trading season.
Jia Hui Tan
VP of Engineering - RedDot Technologies Pte LtdLaunched at 4.7 stars, no critical bugs in the first two weeks. Clean.
Looking back, what strikes me most is how little drama there was. Real technology projects have problems. This one had them too — but every problem was flagged before it became a crisis, every scope change was handled through a proper process, and every risk was managed rather than buried. Our project manager said it was the smoothest vendor engagement he had been involved in. Given how complex the technical requirements were, I think that reflects genuine delivery maturity.
Project summary
Our internal team was committed to maintenance and could not absorb a new build of this complexity. An external partner was the only way to hit the timeline.
Bram de Vries
Chief Technology Officer - Windmill Tech BVLegacy-to-cloud-native in a timeline our previous vendor said was impossible
The platform has been live for six months and is handling three times the transaction volume we scoped for. That is not because we underestimated — it is because the architecture choices made during discovery were genuinely forward-thinking. Most vendors design for exactly what you tell them. This team designed for what you are likely to need. We are already scoping the next phase and there was no question about who we would use.
Project summary
Our internal team was committed to maintenance and could not absorb a new build of this complexity. An external partner was the only way to hit the timeline.