Lemberg Solutions vs Conclusive Engineering: full comparison for 2026
Quick verdict
Lemberg Solutions (4.8/5) edges ahead of Conclusive Engineering (4.5/5) overall. Lemberg Solutions is the better choice for RFPs needing hardware and firmware scoped under one vendor. Conclusive Engineering is the stronger option for RFPs needing PCB development bundled with firmware under ISO 26262 or IEC 61508. The right choice depends on your project size, budget, and required tech stack.
Lemberg Solutions vs Conclusive Engineering: head-to-head summary
| Criterion | Lemberg Solutions | Conclusive Engineering |
|---|---|---|
| Founded | 2007 | 2018 |
| HQ | Lviv, Ukraine (offices in Hamburg, Germany; London, UK; Kraków, Poland) | Katowice, Poland |
| Team size | 200+ | 30–50 |
| Rating | 4.8 / 5 | 4.5 / 5 |
| Primary differentiator | In-house hardware lab plus NXP, STMicroelectronics, and Microchip partner status covers both the board bring-up and firmware line items in a single SOW | Listed Nordic Semiconductor and Texas Instruments partner combining in-house PCB development with firmware and FreeBSD depth |
| Pricing model | Firmware consulting, design-phase engagement, full development lifecycle, or staff augmentation | Project-based engineering engagements |
| Min. engagement | Not published | Not published |
| Primary tech stack | FreeRTOS, Zephyr, Azure RTOS | FreeRTOS, Embedded Linux, FreeBSD |
| Industries served | Healthcare (FDA, HIPAA, IEC 62304, ISO 13485), Energy (battery management, EV charging), Transportation & Logistics, Manufacturing & Industrial IoT, Consumer Electronics, Automotive | Automotive, Healthcare, Industrial, Manufacturing |
Lemberg Solutions vs Conclusive Engineering: overview
Lemberg Solutions
Lemberg Solutions was founded in 2007 in Lviv, Ukraine and has grown to a 200+ person team with additional offices in Hamburg, London, and Kraków. Its engagement scope runs from RTOS and bare-metal firmware architecture through embedded GUI work, secure boot and OTA update design, and hardware validation in its own lab with oscilloscopes, evaluation kits, and hardware-in-the-loop testing capability. Direct partnership status with NXP, STMicroelectronics, and Microchip, plus ISO 9001, ISO 27001, and ISO 13485 certifications, gives a procurement team the kind of verifiable vendor-qualification evidence an RFP typically asks for, and the company transfers full IP and source code rights to the client on delivery.
Conclusive Engineering
Conclusive Engineering was founded in 2018 in Katowice, Poland by Jakub Klama and Wojciech Kloska, with a team most sources place between 30 and 50 engineers. Its scope covers embedded systems design and manufacturing support, spanning microcontroller and FPGA-based firmware alongside in-house hardware design and PCB development, with automotive and healthcare clients where ISO 26262 and IEC 61508 alignment factor into vendor selection. Listed partner status with Nordic Semiconductor and Texas Instruments gives a procurement evaluator a documented, third-party-verifiable credential rather than a self-reported claim.
Services and capabilities: Lemberg Solutions vs Conclusive Engineering
| Capability | Lemberg Solutions | Conclusive Engineering |
|---|---|---|
| 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: Lemberg Solutions vs Conclusive Engineering
| Framework / platform | Lemberg Solutions | Conclusive Engineering |
|---|---|---|
| C | ✓ | ✓ |
| C++ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Embedded Linux | ✓ | ✓ |
| PCB Design | N/A | N/A |
| FPGA | N/A | ✓ |
| MISRA C | ✓ | N/A |
| ITAR | N/A | N/A |
| AWS IoT | ✓ | N/A |
| ASIL | N/A | N/A |
Pricing comparison: Lemberg Solutions vs Conclusive Engineering
| Criterion | Lemberg Solutions | Conclusive Engineering |
|---|---|---|
| Minimum engagement | Not published | Not published |
| Engagement models | Firmware consulting, Design-phase engagement, Full development lifecycle, Staff augmentation | Project-based engineering, Design-phase consulting |
| Rate transparency | Not public | Not public |
| Price tier | Mid-market | Mid-market |
Target audience comparison: Lemberg Solutions vs Conclusive Engineering
| Dimension | Lemberg Solutions | Conclusive Engineering |
|---|---|---|
| Best company size | Startup to mid-market | Startup to mid-market |
| Best industries | Healthcare (FDA, HIPAA, IEC 62304, ISO 13485), Energy (battery management, EV charging), Transportation & Logistics | Automotive, Healthcare, Industrial |
| Best use cases | RFP requiring hardware validation, firmware development, and compliance documentation in one response, Secure OTA update infrastructure for a fleet of connected devices already in the field | Combined PCB and firmware development scoped under a single SOW, ISO 26262-aligned automotive control module procurement |
| Typical project type | Firmware consulting | Project-based engineering |
Lemberg Solutions vs Conclusive Engineering: pros and cons
| Lemberg Solutions | |
|---|---|
| + | In-house hardware lab covers board bring-up and HIL validation, a line item many pure-firmware vendors subcontract out |
| + | ISO 9001, ISO 27001, and ISO 13485 certifications give a procurement team documented evidence for vendor qualification checklists |
| + | Direct NXP, STMicroelectronics, and Microchip partner status is independently verifiable against each vendor's own partner directory |
| + | Engagement models span consulting, design-phase, full lifecycle, and staff augmentation, matching how most RFPs are structured |
| + | Full IP and source code transfer on delivery removes a common negotiation point in vendor contracts |
| - | Does not run mass production in-house, so a manufacturing line item still needs a separate contractor |
| - | Does not submit regulatory certification filings on the client's behalf, only the supporting technical documentation |
| - | No published minimum engagement figure, so budget fit for a specific RFP needs a scoping call |
| Conclusive Engineering | |
|---|---|
| + | Nordic Semiconductor and Texas Instruments partner status is verifiable in each vendor's own public directory, useful for an RFP vendor-qualification step |
| + | In-house PCB development means a hardware+firmware line item can be scoped to one vendor instead of two |
| + | ISO 26262 and IEC 61508 alignment work suits safety-relevant automotive and industrial procurement requirements |
| + | FreeBSD depth is uncommon among competing bidders, most of whom default to Linux or bare-metal only |
| - | Team size estimates vary between roughly 30 and 50 engineers depending on source, worth confirming directly for a large program's bench-depth requirement |
| - | 7 years of operating history is shorter than several larger competitors an RFP evaluation might weigh for track record |
| - | No published pricing or minimum engagement threshold |
Who should choose Lemberg Solutions?
A typical fit: RFP requiring hardware validation, firmware development, and compliance documentation in one response.
In-house hardware lab plus NXP, STMicroelectronics, and Microchip partner status covers both the board bring-up and firmware line items in a single SOW. Minimum engagement is not publicly disclosed. Works best with clients in Healthcare (FDA, HIPAA, IEC 62304, ISO 13485), Energy (battery management, EV charging), Transportation & Logistics, Manufacturing & Industrial IoT, Consumer Electronics, Automotive.
Who should choose Conclusive Engineering?
A typical fit: combined PCB and firmware development scoped under a single SOW.
Listed Nordic Semiconductor and Texas Instruments partner combining in-house PCB development with firmware and FreeBSD depth. Minimum engagement is not publicly disclosed. Works best with clients in Automotive, Healthcare, Industrial, Manufacturing.
Decision matrix: Lemberg Solutions vs Conclusive Engineering
| 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: Lemberg Solutions (Not published) vs Conclusive Engineering (Not published) |
| You need specialist depth in a specific vertical | Lemberg Solutions |
| You need staff augmentation or team extension | Lemberg Solutions |
| You need consulting before committing to a build | Lemberg Solutions |
Use case fit: Lemberg Solutions vs Conclusive Engineering
| Use case | Lemberg Solutions fit | Conclusive Engineering fit | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| RFP requiring hardware validation, firmware development, and compliance documentation in one response | Strong | Strong | Both equally |
| Secure OTA update infrastructure for a fleet of connected devices already in the field | Strong | Limited | Lemberg Solutions |
| Combined PCB and firmware development scoped under a single SOW | Limited | Strong | Conclusive Engineering |
| ISO 26262-aligned automotive control module procurement | Limited | Strong | Conclusive Engineering |
| Fixed-price build | Limited | Limited | Both equally |
| Staff augmentation | Limited | Limited | Both equally |
Verdict: Lemberg Solutions vs Conclusive Engineering
Lemberg Solutions (4.8/5) is the stronger overall choice for most Embedded Firmware projects. In-house hardware lab plus NXP, STMicroelectronics, and Microchip partner status covers both the board bring-up and firmware line items in a single SOW.
Conclusive Engineering (4.5/5) is worth a look if you need ISO 26262-aligned automotive control module procurement. If your situation matches that, Conclusive Engineering is a competitive option.
Related comparisons
Lemberg Solutions vs Conclusive Engineering FAQ
Is Lemberg Solutions better than Conclusive Engineering?
Lemberg Solutions (4.8/5) scores higher overall, but "better" depends on your use case. Lemberg Solutions's strongest advantage: in-house hardware lab covers board bring-up and HIL validation, a line item many pure-firmware vendors subcontract out. Conclusive Engineering's strongest advantage: nordic Semiconductor and Texas Instruments partner status is verifiable in each vendor's own public directory, useful for an RFP vendor-qualification step.
How do Lemberg Solutions and Conclusive Engineering differ in pricing?
Lemberg Solutions uses firmware consulting, design-phase engagement, full development lifecycle, or staff augmentation pricing. Conclusive Engineering uses project-based engineering engagements pricing. Neither firm publishes a full rate card; a discovery call is required for project-specific quotes.
Which is better for enterprise: Lemberg Solutions or Conclusive Engineering?
Conclusive Engineering 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 Lemberg Solutions and Conclusive Engineering?
Lemberg Solutions's primary differentiator is: in-house hardware lab plus NXP, STMicroelectronics, and Microchip partner status covers both the board bring-up and firmware line items in a single SOW. Conclusive Engineering's primary differentiator is: listed Nordic Semiconductor and Texas Instruments partner combining in-house PCB development with firmware and FreeBSD depth. They also differ in team size (200+ vs 30–50), minimum engagement (Not published vs Not published), and primary industries served (Healthcare (FDA, HIPAA, IEC 62304, ISO 13485), Energy (battery management, EV charging) vs Automotive, Healthcare).
Verify all details directly with each service provider before making a decision.