LittleMonkey
Overall Review Rating
4.3 (7 Ratings)
Overview
LittleMonkey Ltd is an IT development company based in Wellington, New Zealand. They specialize in creating websites, games, and apps. Founded in 2007, they have flourished due to their ability to develop robust software and strong relationships with their clients. They at LittleMonkey are very passionate about what they do and you will see this passion and enthusiasm in their work.
Services
- Android App Development
- Enterprise App Development
- AWS Services
- Digital Marketing
- Web Development
- Internet Marketing
- iOS App Development
- Cross Platform Development
- CMS Development
- Mobile App Development
- CMS Solutions
- DevOps & Cloud
Industries Served
LittleMonkey Reviews
Have a look at these client reviews on previously delivered projects.
Matthieu Renard
Directeur Technique - Lumière Technologies SASLaunched at 4.7 stars, no critical bugs in the first two weeks. Clean.
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
Grid modernisation funding required us to demonstrate demand-response capability. The ML models existed on paper — we needed an engineering partner to build and deploy them.
Shreya Krishnaswamy
VP of Product - Luminar Tech Pvt LtdOur team stopped worrying about infrastructure. The value of that is hard to overstate.
The part of this project I had been most worried about was the integration work. Our system landscape is complex, some of the upstream APIs were barely documented, and one of our third-party vendors was notoriously slow to respond. This team documented what the upstream vendors could not, built resilience into the architecture where third-party reliability was uncertain, and delivered integrations that have worked exactly as specified since day one. I genuinely could not have asked for more.
Project summary
Unplanned downtime was our single largest controllable cost. Predictive maintenance data showed we could address most of it — but only with the right data infrastructure in place first.
Nathan Prescott
VP of Technology - Ironclad Insurance GroupFinally solved the trust problem our procurement team had argued about for two years
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
The project had a board-level visibility date. We needed a partner who would treat the deadline as their own.
Niamh O'Sullivan
Director of Product - Munster Digital LtdCI/CD pipeline that changed how our developers think about release risk
We received proposals from six vendors. Four of them quoted us prices that bore no relationship to the actual scope. This team came back with something realistic and then delivered against it exactly. I have worked on enough technology projects to know that the gap between what is proposed and what is delivered is where trust gets destroyed. There was no gap here. What was promised is what we got, and the ongoing relationship we have built from this is something we intend to continue.
Project summary
The EV transition had created dealer network management requirements our existing DMS was not designed for. A targeted rebuild was the only path forward that timeline would allow.
Aarav Mehta
Chief Data Officer - Zenith FinServ LtdCI/CD pipeline that changed how our developers think about release risk
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
Clinical trial data management was running on a system that had been extended well past its design intent. Quality risks in that context are not acceptable — we needed a proper rebuild.