Webdior
Overall Review Rating
4.5 (8 Ratings)
Services
- Android App Development
- Cross Platform Development
- Mobile App Development
- iPhone App Development
- MySQL
- Private Blockchains
- Web Development
- Business Analysis & Consulting
- Enterprise App Modernization
- iOS App Development
- Cloud Computing
- PhoneGap App Development
Industries Served
Webdior Reviews
Have a look at these client reviews on previously delivered projects.
Dominic Fairfax
Head of Digital Transformation - Arcadian Consulting LtdDecentralised architecture that our compliance team could actually sign off on
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
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.
Takashi Morimoto
Director of IT Strategy - Sakura Digital KKLegacy-to-cloud-native in a timeline our previous vendor said was impossible
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 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.
Jia Hui Tan
VP of Engineering - RedDot Technologies Pte LtdTechnically strong, commercially fair, and genuinely good to work with
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 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.
Zara Hussain
Head of Technology - Ravi Digital AgencyOur team stopped guessing and started deciding. That is what good ML looks like.
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
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.
Tanya Wolfe
Senior Product Manager - Harbor Point ConsultingFinally solved the trust problem our procurement team had argued about for two years
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
The project had a board-level visibility date. We needed a partner who would treat the deadline as their own.