Dojo Five vs Very: full comparison for 2026
Quick verdict
Dojo Five (4.5/5) edges ahead of Very (4.2/5) overall. Dojo Five is the better choice for teams wanting automated firmware CI/CD instead of manual builds. Very is the stronger option for distributed-delivery IoT programs needing firmware plus data and ML. The right choice depends on your project size, budget, and required tech stack.
Dojo Five vs Very: head-to-head summary
| Criterion | Dojo Five | Very |
|---|---|---|
| Founded | 2018 | 2011 |
| HQ | Saint Paul, Minnesota, USA | Bozeman, Montana, USA (fully distributed team) |
| Team size | 26 | 51–200 |
| Rating | 4.5 / 5 | 4.2 / 5 |
| Primary differentiator | Built specifically around bringing modern CI/CD, automated testing, and monitoring pipelines to embedded firmware teams | Fully distributed IoT team combining firmware delivery with machine-learning-driven data solutions |
| Pricing model | Firmware engineering and DevOps-style tooling consulting | IoT product development engagements from concept through deployment |
| Min. engagement | Not published | Not published |
| Primary tech stack | C, C++, On-premise and cloud CI/CD | Embedded C/C++, IoT connectivity stacks, Machine learning data pipelines |
| Industries served | Industrial equipment, Medical devices, Consumer electronics | Industrial IoT, Consumer IoT, Smart infrastructure |
Dojo Five vs Very: overview
Dojo Five
Dojo Five was founded in 2018 and is based in Saint Paul, Minnesota, with a team of roughly 26 people. Rather than positioning as a general embedded firm, the company markets itself specifically around modernizing the firmware development lifecycle: automated builds, hardware-in-the-loop testing, and monitoring pipelines that most older firmware vendors still handle manually. That focus means Dojo Five is a better fit for a team that already has a codebase and needs tooling and process discipline than for a from-scratch product build.
Very
Very, formerly known by a different name, was founded in 2011 and is headquartered in Bozeman, Montana, operating as a fully distributed team of 51 to 200 people working from numerous countries rather than from central offices. The firm builds connected ecosystems spanning IoT hardware, firmware, and software infrastructure, plus interface design and machine-learning-driven data solutions built on top of device data. Very has appeared on the Inc. 5000 list of fastest-growing private US companies multiple times, a verifiable third-party growth signal distinct from marketing claims.
Services and capabilities: Dojo Five vs Very
| Capability | Dojo Five | Very |
|---|---|---|
| RTOS firmware development | ✓ | ✓ |
| Bare-metal & driver development | ✗ | ✗ |
| Secure boot / OTA firmware updates | ✗ | ✗ |
| MCU & platform migration | ✗ | ✗ |
| Connectivity & IoT protocols | ✗ | ✓ |
| Functional safety / MISRA compliance | ✓ | ✗ |
| Embedded AI / on-device inference | ✗ | ✓ |
| Firmware GUI development | ✗ | ✗ |
| Staff augmentation | ✗ | ✗ |
Tech stack comparison: Dojo Five vs Very
| Framework / platform | Dojo Five | Very |
|---|---|---|
| FreeRTOS | N/A | N/A |
| Zephyr | N/A | N/A |
| STM32 | N/A | N/A |
| ARM Cortex-M | N/A | N/A |
| BLE | N/A | N/A |
| Embedded Linux | N/A | N/A |
| Secure OTA | N/A | N/A |
| PCB | N/A | N/A |
| AWS IoT | N/A | N/A |
| RISC-V | N/A | N/A |
Pricing comparison: Dojo Five vs Very
| Criterion | Dojo Five | Very |
|---|---|---|
| Minimum engagement | Not published | Not published |
| Engagement models | Fixed project, Dedicated team | Fixed project, Dedicated team |
| Rate transparency | Not public | Not public |
| Price tier | Mid-market | Mid-market |
Target audience comparison: Dojo Five vs Very
| Dimension | Dojo Five | Very |
|---|---|---|
| Best company size | Startup to mid-market | Startup to mid-market |
| Best industries | Industrial equipment, Medical devices, Consumer electronics | Industrial IoT, Consumer IoT, Smart infrastructure |
| Best use cases | Existing firmware codebase with no automated test coverage or CI pipeline, Medical device team needing automated regression testing ahead of a compliance audit | IoT program needing firmware paired with machine-learning-driven data analysis, Smart infrastructure product requiring both device firmware and interface design |
| Typical project type | Fixed project | Fixed project |
Dojo Five vs Very: pros and cons
| Dojo Five | |
|---|---|
| + | Specific focus on firmware CI/CD and automated testing addresses a gap most other firms on this list treat as an afterthought |
| + | Team of 26 keeps every engagement senior-engineer-led rather than staffed with junior generalists |
| + | Modern tooling background reduces the manual regression-testing burden common at older firmware vendors |
| - | Team of 26 limits capacity for very large, multi-year programs |
| - | Founded in 2018, so its public track record is shorter than firms with decades of delivery history |
| Very | |
|---|---|
| + | Repeat appearances on the Inc. 5000 list provide a verifiable third-party growth signal |
| + | Fully distributed team structure can draw specialist talent regardless of location |
| + | Combines firmware delivery with data solutions and machine learning on top of device telemetry |
| - | Fully distributed structure means no central office for in-person collaboration during an engagement |
| - | Montana headquarters is a smaller regional base than most firms' US locations on this list |
Who should choose Dojo Five?
A typical fit: existing firmware codebase with no automated test coverage or CI pipeline.
Built specifically around bringing modern CI/CD, automated testing, and monitoring pipelines to embedded firmware teams. Minimum engagement is not publicly disclosed. Works best with clients in Industrial equipment, Medical devices, Consumer electronics.
Who should choose Very?
A typical fit: IoT program needing firmware paired with machine-learning-driven data analysis.
Fully distributed IoT team combining firmware delivery with machine-learning-driven data solutions. Minimum engagement is not publicly disclosed. Works best with clients in Industrial IoT, Consumer IoT, Smart infrastructure.
Decision matrix: Dojo Five vs Very
| Your situation | Recommended choice |
|---|---|
| You need full-ownership delivery on a defined project scope | Dojo Five |
| You need a large dedicated team for an ongoing programme | Dojo Five |
| Your budget is at the lower end | Compare: Dojo Five (Not published) vs Very (Not published) |
| You need specialist depth in a specific vertical | Dojo Five |
| 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 Very
| Use case | Dojo Five fit | Very fit | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Existing firmware codebase with no automated test coverage or CI pipeline | Strong | Limited | Dojo Five |
| Medical device team needing automated regression testing ahead of a compliance audit | Strong | Limited | Dojo Five |
| IoT program needing firmware paired with machine-learning-driven data analysis | Limited | Strong | Very |
| Smart infrastructure product requiring both device firmware and interface design | Limited | Strong | Very |
| Fixed-price build | Limited | Limited | Both equally |
| Staff augmentation | Limited | Limited | Both equally |
Verdict: Dojo Five vs Very
Dojo Five (4.5/5) is the stronger overall choice for most Firmware Development projects. Built specifically around bringing modern CI/CD, automated testing, and monitoring pipelines to embedded firmware teams.
Very (4.2/5) is worth a look if you need smart infrastructure product requiring both device firmware and interface design. If your situation matches that, Very is a competitive option.
Related comparisons
Dojo Five vs Very FAQ
Is Dojo Five better than Very?
Dojo Five (4.5/5) scores higher overall, but "better" depends on your use case. Dojo Five's strongest advantage: specific focus on firmware CI/CD and automated testing addresses a gap most other firms on this list treat as an afterthought. Very's strongest advantage: repeat appearances on the Inc. 5000 list provide a verifiable third-party growth signal.
How do Dojo Five and Very differ in pricing?
Dojo Five uses firmware engineering and devops-style tooling consulting pricing. Very uses iot product development engagements from concept through deployment 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 Very?
Very is the larger team and typically the better enterprise-scale choice. For very large programmes, verify team size and compliance coverage directly with each company before shortlisting.
What are the main differences between Dojo Five and Very?
Dojo Five's primary differentiator is: built specifically around bringing modern CI/CD, automated testing, and monitoring pipelines to embedded firmware teams. Very's primary differentiator is: fully distributed IoT team combining firmware delivery with machine-learning-driven data solutions. They also differ in team size (26 vs 51–200), minimum engagement (Not published vs Not published), and primary industries served (Industrial equipment, Medical devices vs Industrial IoT, Consumer IoT).
Verify all details directly with each company before making a decision.