DE Design Works vs WebbyLab: full comparison for 2026
Quick verdict
DE Design Works (4.3/5) edges ahead of WebbyLab (4.2/5) overall. DE Design Works is the better choice for rugged industrial, medical, or military RFPs needing PCB plus firmware. WebbyLab is the stronger option for RFPs bundling hardware selection, firmware, and the connected application layer. The right choice depends on your project size, budget, and required tech stack.
DE Design Works vs WebbyLab: head-to-head summary
| Criterion | DE Design Works | WebbyLab |
|---|---|---|
| Founded | 2002 | 2011 |
| HQ | Chesterfield, MO, USA | Kyiv, Ukraine (also London, UK) |
| Team size | 11–50 | 120+ |
| Rating | 4.3 / 5 | 4.2 / 5 |
| Primary differentiator | 23 years of combined PCB, hardware, and firmware design specifically for rugged industrial, medical, and military applications | Full-cycle delivery from hardware selection through firmware and the connected application layer under one team |
| Pricing model | Project-based electronics and firmware engagements | Project-based full-cycle IoT engagements |
| Min. engagement | Not published | Not published |
| Primary tech stack | C, C++, Embedded Linux | C, C++, IoT Connectivity Protocols |
| Industries served | Industrial, Medical devices, Military/defense, Consumer electronics | IoT hardware products, Fintech, E-commerce |
DE Design Works vs WebbyLab: overview
DE Design Works
DE Design Works was founded in 2002 and operates from Chesterfield, Missouri with a team in the 11 to 50 employee range. Its scope centers on PCB and hardware design for rugged industrial, medical, and military applications alongside embedded software and firmware, including secure OTA update signing, staging, and rollback, and embedded Linux board support package bring-up. For an RFP built around a ruggedized or regulated product, having electronics and firmware design under one small, senior vendor reduces the integration risk of coordinating separate hardware and software contractors.
WebbyLab
WebbyLab was founded in 2011 by Anton Morozov and Viktor Turskyi and operates from Kyiv and London with more than 120 engineers across hardware, firmware, and software disciplines. The firm's stated full-cycle scope runs from hardware selection through firmware development and the cloud or mobile application layer, with IoT and embedded systems named as a core specialty and Fortune 500 clients cited among its customer base. That full-cycle framing fits an RFP that bundles the connected-device backend into the same scope as the firmware itself.
Services and capabilities: DE Design Works vs WebbyLab
| Capability | DE Design Works | WebbyLab |
|---|---|---|
| Firmware development | ✓ | ✓ |
| Hardware / PCB co-design | ✓ | ✓ |
| Functional safety / certification | ✗ | ✗ |
| Defense / aerospace credentials | ✗ | ✗ |
| Medical device firmware | ✗ | ✗ |
| Secure firmware updates | ✓ | ✗ |
| IoT connectivity | ✗ | ✓ |
| Embedded Linux | ✓ | ✗ |
| Staff augmentation | ✗ | ✗ |
Tech stack comparison: DE Design Works vs WebbyLab
| Framework / platform | DE Design Works | WebbyLab |
|---|---|---|
| C | ✓ | ✓ |
| C++ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Embedded Linux | ✓ | N/A |
| PCB Design | ✓ | N/A |
| FPGA | N/A | N/A |
| MISRA C | N/A | N/A |
| ITAR | N/A | N/A |
| AWS IoT | N/A | N/A |
| ASIL | N/A | N/A |
Pricing comparison: DE Design Works vs WebbyLab
| Criterion | DE Design Works | WebbyLab |
|---|---|---|
| Minimum engagement | Not published | Not published |
| Engagement models | Project-based engineering | Project-based full-cycle development |
| Rate transparency | Not public | Not public |
| Price tier | Mid-market | Mid-market |
Target audience comparison: DE Design Works vs WebbyLab
| Dimension | DE Design Works | WebbyLab |
|---|---|---|
| Best company size | Startup to mid-market | Startup to mid-market |
| Best industries | Industrial, Medical devices, Military/defense | IoT hardware products, Fintech, E-commerce |
| Best use cases | Combined PCB and firmware design for a ruggedized industrial or military device, Secure OTA update infrastructure RFP for a fielded product | Full-cycle IoT RFP from hardware selection through firmware and its companion mobile app, Embedded firmware program requiring cloud integration under one vendor |
| Typical project type | Project-based engineering | Project-based full-cycle development |
DE Design Works vs WebbyLab: pros and cons
| DE Design Works | |
|---|---|
| + | PCB and hardware design for rugged, regulated applications sits alongside firmware in the same firm, not a separate contractor |
| + | Secure OTA update work covering signing, staging, and rollback is a specific, verifiable technical capability for a security-conscious RFP |
| + | 23 years of operating history gives a track record to reference-check against |
| + | Rugged industrial, medical, and military application experience matches vendor-qualification requirements common in those RFPs |
| - | 11 to 50 employees limits concurrent capacity compared to larger competing bidders |
| - | Public case studies naming specific past programs are limited, so verifying track record needs direct reference requests |
| - | No published pricing or minimum engagement threshold |
| WebbyLab | |
|---|---|
| + | Full-cycle scope from hardware selection through the connected application layer reduces the vendor count an RFP needs to coordinate |
| + | 120-plus engineers gives more concurrent-program capacity than most boutique competing bidders |
| + | Fortune 500 client relationships indicate prior experience with large-organization procurement processes |
| + | 14 years of operating history under its original two founders |
| - | IoT and embedded is one specialty alongside fintech and e-commerce work, not the firm's sole focus |
| - | Specific named case studies with verifiable project details are limited in public materials |
| - | No published pricing or minimum engagement threshold |
Who should choose DE Design Works?
A typical fit: combined PCB and firmware design for a ruggedized industrial or military device.
23 years of combined PCB, hardware, and firmware design specifically for rugged industrial, medical, and military applications. Minimum engagement is not publicly disclosed. Works best with clients in Industrial, Medical devices, Military/defense, Consumer electronics.
Who should choose WebbyLab?
A typical fit: full-cycle IoT RFP from hardware selection through firmware and its companion mobile app.
Full-cycle delivery from hardware selection through firmware and the connected application layer under one team. Minimum engagement is not publicly disclosed. Works best with clients in IoT hardware products, Fintech, E-commerce.
Decision matrix: DE Design Works vs WebbyLab
| Your situation | Recommended choice |
|---|---|
| You need full-ownership delivery on a defined project scope | Both offer fixed-price models |
| You need a large dedicated team for an ongoing programme | Check each company's engagement model |
| Your budget is at the lower end | Compare: DE Design Works (Not published) vs WebbyLab (Not published) |
| You need specialist depth in a specific vertical | DE Design Works |
| You need staff augmentation or team extension | Neither; consider alternatives that offer staff aug |
| You need consulting before committing to a build | Both may offer discovery engagements |
Use case fit: DE Design Works vs WebbyLab
| Use case | DE Design Works fit | WebbyLab fit | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Combined PCB and firmware design for a ruggedized industrial or military device | Strong | Limited | DE Design Works |
| Secure OTA update infrastructure RFP for a fielded product | Strong | Limited | DE Design Works |
| Full-cycle IoT RFP from hardware selection through firmware and its companion mobile app | Limited | Strong | WebbyLab |
| Embedded firmware program requiring cloud integration under one vendor | Strong | Strong | Both equally |
| Fixed-price build | Limited | Limited | Both equally |
| Staff augmentation | Limited | Limited | Both equally |
Verdict: DE Design Works vs WebbyLab
DE Design Works (4.3/5) is the stronger overall choice for most Embedded Firmware projects. 23 years of combined PCB, hardware, and firmware design specifically for rugged industrial, medical, and military applications.
WebbyLab (4.2/5) is worth a look if you need embedded firmware program requiring cloud integration under one vendor. If your situation matches that, WebbyLab is a competitive option.
Related comparisons
DE Design Works vs WebbyLab FAQ
Is DE Design Works better than WebbyLab?
DE Design Works (4.3/5) scores higher overall, but "better" depends on your use case. DE Design Works's strongest advantage: PCB and hardware design for rugged, regulated applications sits alongside firmware in the same firm, not a separate contractor. WebbyLab's strongest advantage: full-cycle scope from hardware selection through the connected application layer reduces the vendor count an RFP needs to coordinate.
How do DE Design Works and WebbyLab differ in pricing?
DE Design Works uses project-based electronics and firmware engagements pricing. WebbyLab uses project-based full-cycle iot engagements pricing. Neither firm publishes a full rate card; a discovery call is required for project-specific quotes.
Which is better for enterprise: DE Design Works or WebbyLab?
DE Design Works is the larger team and typically the better enterprise-scale choice. For very large programmes, verify team size and compliance coverage directly with each service provider before shortlisting.
What are the main differences between DE Design Works and WebbyLab?
DE Design Works's primary differentiator is: 23 years of combined PCB, hardware, and firmware design specifically for rugged industrial, medical, and military applications. WebbyLab's primary differentiator is: full-cycle delivery from hardware selection through firmware and the connected application layer under one team. They also differ in team size (11–50 vs 120+), minimum engagement (Not published vs Not published), and primary industries served (Industrial, Medical devices vs IoT hardware products, Fintech).
Verify all details directly with each service provider before making a decision.