Rareiio
Overall Review Rating
4.6 (8 Ratings)
Services
- Chat Bots & AI Development
- Cross Platform Development
- Web Development
- iOS App Development
- Digital Marketing
- DevOps
- Market Research
- Maintenance
- Cloud Computing Software
- 3D & Interior Design
- Android App Development
- Mobile App Development
Industries Served
Rareiio Reviews
Have a look at these client reviews on previously delivered projects.
Jordan Fischer
Director of Engineering - Mesa Technologies IncAccessibility improvements that broadened our audience and satisfied our enterprise clients
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
The project had a board-level visibility date. We needed a partner who would treat the deadline as their own.
Marco Ferrante
VP of Engineering - Adriatic Tech SrlFirmware, cloud layer, and dashboard — all three actually talk to each other. Novel.
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 product thinking was strong. Our execution capacity in this specific domain was limited. We needed deep expertise, not a generalist willing to learn on our time.
Kenji Watanabe
Senior Engineering Manager - Fuji Software CorpEvery SEO ranking preserved from the old site. Our search team was very relieved.
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 product roadmap was solid but our internal delivery capacity was stretched thin across maintenance. A trusted external partner for the net-new build was the only option that made timeline sense.
Giulia Conti
Product Manager - Colosseum Digital SrlClear-eyed assessment of where we were, followed by a credible plan forward
What I appreciated most was that they were honest when things were not going to plan. There was one point mid-project where a dependency was going to affect our timeline and they told us three weeks before it would have become critical. That gave us time to adjust. Vendors who manage upward proactively are rare. This one did it consistently throughout the engagement.
Project summary
Years of incremental development had left us with a platform that was functional but limiting. A structured rebuild was the agreed path forward.
Hamza Qureshi
Senior Engineering Manager - Karachi Tech SolutionsLaunched 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
OTA update orchestration for our software-defined vehicles needed to be bulletproof. The liability implications of getting it wrong were significant enough to justify specialist development.