InterSynergy
Overall Review Rating
4.6 (8 Ratings)
Services
- iOS App Development
- Maintenance
- Mobile App Development
- Cloud Computing Software
- Machine Learning
- IoT App Development
- Ruby on Rails
- .NET Development
- Cross Platform Development
- Web Development
- iPhone App Development
- Android App Development
Industries Served
InterSynergy Reviews
Have a look at these client reviews on previously delivered projects.
Jordan Fischer
Director of Engineering - Mesa Technologies IncSmooth launch, great reviews, no embarrassing bug reports from users in the first month
We went with a smaller team than we had originally planned for. I had concerns about whether the capacity would be sufficient given our timeline. Those concerns were unfounded. The team was focused, communication was constant, and the quality at each milestone review was consistent throughout. Smaller does not mean slower when the people are the right ones and this engagement proved that.
Project summary
Our LMS was built for classroom-first delivery. Hybrid learning had exposed every assumption it was built on, and student satisfaction data confirmed it.
Fatima Al-Suwaidi
Head of Digital Strategy - Gulf FinTech HoldingsMulti-region setup and automated failover that we tested twice and it worked both times
The knowledge transfer at the end of the project was notably good. Too many vendors see handover as a tick-box exercise. This team ran structured sessions, produced documentation our internal team actually references, and spent real time making sure we understood the architecture decisions well enough to maintain and extend the system independently. Six months later we are doing exactly that without needing to go back to them for every question.
Project summary
Supply chain disruptions had made demand forecasting critical. Our planning team was working off data that was always two weeks out of date.
Danielle Westbrook
Chief Digital Officer - BlueSky Retail HoldingsThey resolved a network issue at 2am before anyone arrived at the office. Nobody noticed.
Our stakeholder group was unusually broad — board sponsors, operational users, compliance leads, and an IT team with strong opinions. I have watched vendors handle that kind of environment badly. This team adjusted how they communicated depending on who they were talking to, managed expectations honestly when things shifted, and delivered something that each group considers a success. Getting everyone to agree on that outcome was not straightforward and they deserve credit for making it happen.
Project summary
Our campaign workflow ran across twelve different tools. The reconciliation overhead was hurting both speed and accuracy, and our team was absorbing the cost.
Pieter van den Berg
Senior Product Manager - Polder SaaS BVCustom modules that fit our processes rather than forcing us to change them
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
A failed engagement the previous year had made us more rigorous about vendor selection. We took the time to find a partner we actually trusted before we committed.
Omar Al-Farsi
Chief Technology Officer - Falcon Digital VenturesDelivered on scope, on budget, and with zero critical bugs at go-live
We went with a smaller team than we had originally planned for. I had concerns about whether the capacity would be sufficient given our timeline. Those concerns were unfounded. The team was focused, communication was constant, and the quality at each milestone review was consistent throughout. Smaller does not mean slower when the people are the right ones and this engagement proved that.
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.