Custom Software Development Services for US & EU Mid-Market and Enterprise Teams

Custom builds are fixed-scope and all-in, quoted in USD and tiered by what you are building. A landing or small build runs from $1,100 (2–4 weeks); a corporate system with roles, an admin panel and integrations from $2,900 (6–10 weeks); an online store or marketplace from $5,800 (10–16 weeks); a portal or multi-role web service from $10,400 (14–22 weeks). The exact number depends on feature depth, integration count and compliance scope. You see the line-item budget at the end of discovery and sign off before any code is written. IP transfers to you on day one, and there is no recruitment markup, no tool surcharge and no hidden fee.

A focused MVP with one or two integrations typically ships in 12 to 20 weeks. Mid-market SaaS or fintech platforms with role-based access, billing, and third-party APIs run 6 to 9 months to v1.0. Enterprise platforms with HIPAA or PCI DSS scope and multiple data sources plan for 9 to 14 months. We deliver in two-week sprints with a CET workday and 9 AM–1 PM ET overlap for live US calls.

We build under GDPR-aligned and CCPA-acknowledged controls by default. We are ISO 27001 ready, SOC 2 Type II is in progress, and we deliver HIPAA-capable and PCI DSS-capable engagements with documented data flows, encryption at rest and in transit, RBAC, audit logging, and DPA support. For EU clients we handle data residency in EEA regions; for US healthcare we operate under BAAs with named subprocessors.

The client owns 100% of the source code, designs, documentation, models, and derived artifacts on payment. Every Master Services Agreement includes a present-tense IP assignment, a work-for-hire clause valid under both US and EU law, NDAs with each engineer, and clean third-party license tracking. We hand over Git repositories, CI/CD pipelines, infrastructure-as-code, and a closeout package; no vendor lock-in to YuSMP infrastructure.

We offer three models. Fixed Price suits scoped MVPs and well-defined modules with stable requirements. Time & Materials fits evolving roadmaps, discovery-heavy work, and AI or data initiatives where scope shifts. Dedicated Team is the default for mid-market and enterprise buyers needing a long-running squad of 4–12 senior engineers, embedded with the client's product owner under CET hours and East Coast overlap.

Squads are senior-only. A typical Dedicated Team has a tech lead, 3–6 senior full-stack or backend engineers, a senior frontend engineer, a QA automation engineer, a DevOps engineer, and a delivery manager. Optional: solutions architect, security engineer, data engineer, product designer. Average tenure is 6+ years; we do not bench juniors on client projects. 80+ engineers in Yerevan, NPS 71 across 120+ delivered projects.

Yes. Modernization is one of our core engagement types: we stabilize the legacy system first, then run a strangler-fig rebuild behind feature flags so users never lose service. For REHAU we replaced a legacy dealer ordering portal with a custom Next.js and NestJS platform live in six European markets, with SAP stock data refreshed in under 60 seconds. Modernization work usually runs on Time & Materials with a fixed senior team.

All-in USD, fixed-scope, tiered by build: a landing or small build from $1,100 (2–4 weeks); a corporate system from $2,900 (6–10 weeks); an online store or marketplace from $5,800 (10–16 weeks); a portal or web service from $10,400 (14–22 weeks). What moves the number inside a tier is feature depth, the number of third-party integrations and your compliance scope. Cloud fees run on your own accounts, so you keep the cost lever, and the engagement is scoped and quoted after a free scope assessment — no recruitment markup, no tool surcharges.

Yes — the practice is built for both markets. Our teams run a CET workday with a live 9 AM–1 PM ET overlap for US clients, contracts carry IP-assignment and work-for-hire clauses valid under both US and EU law, and data flows are GDPR-aligned for the EU and CCPA-acknowledged for the US, with EEA data residency by default and US-region options on request. Warehouse, CheckList and Signatory Pro were all delivered for combined US and EU operating requirements.

We start with a codebase audit: static analysis with SonarQube or CodeClimate, a manual review of the architecture boundaries and data model, a dependency inventory with known CVEs flagged, and an interview with the engineers who know where the bodies are buried. The output is a technical debt map with items classified by risk (security or data-integrity impact), velocity impact (what is slowing down new feature delivery), and remediation cost. We then prioritise by the intersection of risk and impact — not by age of the code — and plan remediation in parallel with new feature work rather than as a separate debt-reduction sprint that never ships. The most effective pattern is the Strangler Fig: route new behaviour through a clean module while the legacy implementation continues to serve existing users, deprecate the legacy path once the new one handles 100% of the traffic, and delete it cleanly rather than leaving it in place as a maintenance surface.

Yes, and we consider it a core part of the discovery engagement. The build-vs-buy test we apply: if a packaged product covers 90% of your workflow and the remaining 10% is not what you compete on, we will tell you to buy it — and we will tell you which product and why. When the last 10% is the business — a configurator rulebook, an offline plant floor, a compliance boundary no vendor will own — custom is the cheaper option over a five-year horizon, because you stop paying per-seat licenses and vendor-fork maintenance for the privilege of working around someone else's roadmap. Discovery is a paid, time-boxed engagement and its output is yours either way; several clients have taken the vendor assessment to their board and then implemented our recommendation without continuing to a build engagement.

We manage scope change through a written change note that names the specific change, its cost impact, and its schedule impact before anyone writes a line of code. This is a contractual commitment, not a process aspiration: no scope change is absorbed silently or invoiced as overruns at the end of the project. In practice, most scope changes that arise mid-build are surfaced during sprint demos — the bi-weekly live session where stakeholders see working software rather than status slides — and the cost/schedule impact is quantified within 48 hours. For changes driven by market feedback or regulatory updates rather than scope creep, we can re-prioritise the roadmap backlog without replanning the whole project, because our sprint structure keeps a planning horizon of two releases rather than a fixed 12-month scope that cannot flex.

Yes — transfer is the default, not an option. IP assignment is in the standard contract from day one: all code, architecture decision records, documentation, and infrastructure definitions are yours on day one of the engagement, not at handover. At the end of the build we run a structured knowledge transfer: pair sessions between our engineers and your team on the critical paths, a recorded walkthrough of the architecture and operational runbooks, and a handover checklist signed off by both parties. We size the handover sprint to the system complexity and your team's background — a team with no prior context on the codebase needs a longer transfer than a team that has been code-reviewing alongside us throughout the build. Most clients elect to retain a small maintenance team post-handover; some run independently from day one. Either outcome is planned for in the build, not improvised at the end.