GoodSoft
Overall Review Rating
4.2 (5 Ratings)
Services
- Android App Development
- Market Research
- MVP Development
- Branding
- Research & Investigation
- E-Commerce
- Big Data
- iOS App Development
- Cross Platform Development
- AR App Development
- Web Development
- Mobile App Development
Industries Served
GoodSoft Reviews
Have a look at these client reviews on previously delivered projects.
Lars Pfeiffer
VP of Technology - NordTech Logistik GmbHProactive monitoring prevented an issue that would have cost us a trading day
What set this team apart in practice was their engineering judgment — specifically, their willingness to tell us when our requirements were wrong and explain what to do instead. Not every vendor does that. The consultative element elevated the final output well beyond what our original brief described. We ended up with something better than what we had asked for, which is not a sentence I expected to be writing in a review.
Project summary
Clients were asking for real-time campaign performance data. We were delivering reports two days after the fact. The gap was becoming a retention issue.
Bilal Chaudhry
Co-Founder & CTO - Indus Software HouseApp store debut with a 4.7 rating. The reviews write themselves when the product is good.
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 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.
Marcus Holloway
SVP of Engineering - Vertex Cloud DynamicsThe kind of game studio that treats production quality as non-negotiable
We handed them an aggressive deadline, a complex scope, and a client-side team that was stretched and not always available when they needed us. They handled that gracefully. They were precise about what they needed and when they needed it. Where they could proceed independently they did. The delivery landed on time in spite of the constraints we added. I regard that as strong evidence of genuine professional maturity — not just capability.
Project summary
The project had a board-level visibility date. We needed a partner who would treat the deadline as their own.
Bram de Vries
Chief Technology Officer - Windmill Tech BVWe went from arguing about the numbers to acting on them. The platform made that possible.
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
A regulatory change required us to rearchitect how we stored and processed customer call data. The timeline was set externally, not by our roadmap preferences.
Pieter van den Berg
Senior Product Manager - Polder SaaS BVOur sales team adopted it in the first week without a single complaint
What set this team apart in practice was their engineering judgment — specifically, their willingness to tell us when our requirements were wrong and explain what to do instead. Not every vendor does that. The consultative element elevated the final output well beyond what our original brief described. We ended up with something better than what we had asked for, which is not a sentence I expected to be writing in a review.
Project summary
Digital service standards required citizen-facing systems that our inherited infrastructure simply could not meet. Remediation was not viable — the only credible path was replacement.