Dojo Five vs Electrobit Technology: full comparison for 2026
Quick verdict
Dojo Five (4.5/5) edges ahead of Electrobit Technology (4.0/5) overall. Dojo Five is the better choice for FDA-ready firmware for connected medical devices and diagnostics. Electrobit Technology is the stronger option for RFPs needing firmware plus PCB fabrication and box build under one vendor. The right choice depends on your project size, budget, and required tech stack.
Dojo Five vs Electrobit Technology: head-to-head summary
| Criterion | Dojo Five | Electrobit Technology |
|---|---|---|
| Founded | 2018 | 2016 |
| HQ | Saint Paul, MN, USA | Ahmedabad, India |
| Team size | 26 | 11–50 |
| Rating | 4.5 / 5 | 4.0 / 5 |
| Primary differentiator | Firmware delivery scoped exclusively around FDA-regulated medical device and diagnostics programs, not a general embedded practice | Turnkey scope from PCB fabrication and firmware through SMT assembly and box build under a single vendor |
| Pricing model | Project-based firmware engagements for medical device programs | Project-based turnkey electronics and firmware engagements |
| Min. engagement | Not published | Not published |
| Primary tech stack | C, C++, Medical Device Firmware Standards | C, C++, Embedded Linux |
| Industries served | Medical devices, Diagnostics | IoT hardware products, Consumer electronics, Industrial |
Dojo Five vs Electrobit Technology: overview
Dojo Five
Dojo Five was founded in 2018 and is headquartered in Saint Paul, Minnesota with a team of 26 engineers. The firm's stated scope is narrow and deliberate: production-ready embedded firmware for connected medical devices and diagnostics, delivered on time and on budget, without the broader industrial or consumer electronics work that dilutes focus at larger firms. For an RFP built around a specific medical device program, that narrowness reads as depth rather than a limitation, since every engineer on the team works inside the same regulatory and reliability constraints day to day.
Electrobit Technology
Electrobit Technology was founded in 2016 and is headquartered in Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India, with a team of 11 to 50 employees. The company offers turnkey embedded product design spanning hardware and board design, high-speed PCB design, embedded firmware and device driver development, embedded Linux, PCB fabrication, SMT assembly, and box build, taking a project from concept through production support. That manufacturing-adjacent scope, firmware plus fabrication and assembly, is a specific fit for an RFP that wants the transition from prototype to production handled by the same vendor.
Services and capabilities: Dojo Five vs Electrobit Technology
| Capability | Dojo Five | Electrobit Technology |
|---|---|---|
| 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: Dojo Five vs Electrobit Technology
| Framework / platform | Dojo Five | Electrobit Technology |
|---|---|---|
| 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: Dojo Five vs Electrobit Technology
| Criterion | Dojo Five | Electrobit Technology |
|---|---|---|
| Minimum engagement | Not published | Not published |
| Engagement models | Project-based firmware development | Project-based turnkey engineering |
| Rate transparency | Not public | Not public |
| Price tier | Mid-market | Mid-market |
Target audience comparison: Dojo Five vs Electrobit Technology
| Dimension | Dojo Five | Electrobit Technology |
|---|---|---|
| Best company size | Startup to mid-market | Startup to mid-market |
| Best industries | Medical devices, Diagnostics | IoT hardware products, Consumer electronics, Industrial |
| Best use cases | Firmware development for a connected diagnostic device ahead of FDA submission, Production-ready firmware handoff for a medical device already through concept and hardware design | Turnkey RFP requiring PCB fabrication, firmware, and box build under one vendor, Embedded Linux device driver development for a new hardware platform |
| Typical project type | Project-based firmware development | Project-based turnkey engineering |
Dojo Five vs Electrobit Technology: pros and cons
| Dojo Five | |
|---|---|
| + | Sole focus on connected medical devices and diagnostics means the entire team works inside FDA-relevant constraints, not a fraction of it |
| + | Stated commitment to on-time, on-budget delivery is a specific procurement claim, not a generic marketing line |
| + | 7 years of operating history built entirely around this one vertical |
| + | Small team size gives a procurement contact direct access to senior firmware engineers rather than account layers |
| - | 26 engineers caps concurrent capacity; an RFP needing parallel workstreams across several device programs may need to confirm bench depth first |
| - | Its medical-device-only focus is a narrower fit for an RFP spanning non-medical hardware categories |
| - | No published pricing or minimum engagement figure |
| Electrobit Technology | |
|---|---|
| + | Turnkey scope from PCB fabrication through firmware, SMT assembly, and box build reduces the vendor count for a production-bound RFP |
| + | 9 years of operating history focused specifically on embedded product design and manufacturing support |
| + | Embedded Linux and device driver development covers higher-complexity connected products beyond bare-metal work |
| + | Distinct from the similarly named Elektrobit (EB) automotive supplier, worth confirming during vendor identity verification in an RFP |
| - | 11 to 50 employees limits concurrent capacity for the largest production-scale RFPs |
| - | Public case study detail with named client outcomes is limited |
| - | No published pricing or minimum engagement figure |
Who should choose Dojo Five?
A typical fit: firmware development for a connected diagnostic device ahead of FDA submission.
Firmware delivery scoped exclusively around FDA-regulated medical device and diagnostics programs, not a general embedded practice. Minimum engagement is not publicly disclosed. Works best with clients in Medical devices, Diagnostics.
Who should choose Electrobit Technology?
A typical fit: turnkey RFP requiring PCB fabrication, firmware, and box build under one vendor.
Turnkey scope from PCB fabrication and firmware through SMT assembly and box build under a single vendor. Minimum engagement is not publicly disclosed. Works best with clients in IoT hardware products, Consumer electronics, Industrial.
Decision matrix: Dojo Five vs Electrobit Technology
| 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: Dojo Five (Not published) vs Electrobit Technology (Not published) |
| You need specialist depth in a specific vertical | Electrobit Technology |
| You need staff augmentation or team extension | Neither; consider alternatives that offer staff aug |
| You need consulting before committing to a build | Dojo Five |
Use case fit: Dojo Five vs Electrobit Technology
| Use case | Dojo Five fit | Electrobit Technology fit | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Firmware development for a connected diagnostic device ahead of FDA submission | Strong | Strong | Both equally |
| Production-ready firmware handoff for a medical device already through concept and hardware design | Strong | Limited | Dojo Five |
| Turnkey RFP requiring PCB fabrication, firmware, and box build under one vendor | Limited | Strong | Electrobit Technology |
| Embedded Linux device driver development for a new hardware platform | Limited | Strong | Electrobit Technology |
| Fixed-price build | Limited | Limited | Both equally |
| Staff augmentation | Limited | Limited | Both equally |
Verdict: Dojo Five vs Electrobit Technology
Dojo Five (4.5/5) is the stronger overall choice for most Embedded Firmware projects. Firmware delivery scoped exclusively around FDA-regulated medical device and diagnostics programs, not a general embedded practice.
Electrobit Technology (4.0/5) is worth a look if you need embedded Linux device driver development for a new hardware platform. If your situation matches that, Electrobit Technology is a competitive option.
Related comparisons
Dojo Five vs Electrobit Technology FAQ
Is Dojo Five better than Electrobit Technology?
Dojo Five (4.5/5) scores higher overall, but "better" depends on your use case. Dojo Five's strongest advantage: sole focus on connected medical devices and diagnostics means the entire team works inside FDA-relevant constraints, not a fraction of it. Electrobit Technology's strongest advantage: turnkey scope from PCB fabrication through firmware, SMT assembly, and box build reduces the vendor count for a production-bound RFP.
How do Dojo Five and Electrobit Technology differ in pricing?
Dojo Five uses project-based firmware engagements for medical device programs pricing. Electrobit Technology uses project-based turnkey electronics and firmware engagements pricing. Neither firm publishes a full rate card; a discovery call is required for project-specific quotes.
Which is better for enterprise: Dojo Five or Electrobit Technology?
Electrobit Technology 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 Dojo Five and Electrobit Technology?
Dojo Five's primary differentiator is: firmware delivery scoped exclusively around FDA-regulated medical device and diagnostics programs, not a general embedded practice. Electrobit Technology's primary differentiator is: turnkey scope from PCB fabrication and firmware through SMT assembly and box build under a single vendor. They also differ in team size (26 vs 11–50), minimum engagement (Not published vs Not published), and primary industries served (Medical devices, Diagnostics vs IoT hardware products, Consumer electronics).
Verify all details directly with each service provider before making a decision.