WebbyLab vs Very: full comparison for 2026
Quick verdict
WebbyLab (4.3/5) edges ahead of Very (4.2/5) overall. WebbyLab is the better choice for IoT products needing firmware plus edge and cloud dashboards together. 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.
WebbyLab vs Very: head-to-head summary
| Criterion | WebbyLab | Very |
|---|---|---|
| Founded | 2011 | 2011 |
| HQ | Kyiv, Ukraine | Bozeman, Montana, USA (fully distributed team) |
| Team size | 120+ | 51–200 |
| Rating | 4.3 / 5 | 4.2 / 5 |
| Primary differentiator | Covers device firmware, edge computing, and cloud dashboards as one delivery team instead of separate vendors | Fully distributed IoT team combining firmware delivery with machine-learning-driven data solutions |
| Pricing model | Full-cycle engineering engagements | IoT product development engagements from concept through deployment |
| Min. engagement | Not published | Not published |
| Primary tech stack | C, C++, Edge computing platforms | Embedded C/C++, IoT connectivity stacks, Machine learning data pipelines |
| Industries served | Industrial IoT, Fintech, E-commerce | Industrial IoT, Consumer IoT, Smart infrastructure |
WebbyLab vs Very: overview
WebbyLab
WebbyLab was founded in 2011 and is based in Kyiv, Ukraine, with a team of 120 or more engineers across hardware, firmware, and software disciplines. The firm delivers device firmware in C and C++ alongside edge computing and cloud dashboard work as one engagement, which cuts down on the number of vendors a client has to coordinate for a full IoT product. Embedded and IoT work sits alongside a broader software portfolio spanning fintech and e-commerce, so firmware is one practice area among several rather than the company's sole focus.
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: WebbyLab vs Very
| Capability | WebbyLab | 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: WebbyLab vs Very
| Framework / platform | WebbyLab | 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: WebbyLab vs Very
| Criterion | WebbyLab | 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: WebbyLab vs Very
| Dimension | WebbyLab | Very |
|---|---|---|
| Best company size | Startup to mid-market | Startup to mid-market |
| Best industries | Industrial IoT, Fintech, E-commerce | Industrial IoT, Consumer IoT, Smart infrastructure |
| Best use cases | Industrial IoT device needing firmware, edge computing, and a cloud dashboard delivered together, Smart product requiring AI-driven analytics built on top of device telemetry | 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 |
WebbyLab vs Very: pros and cons
| WebbyLab | |
|---|---|
| + | Full-cycle delivery from device firmware through cloud dashboards reduces the number of vendors a client needs to coordinate |
| + | 120 or more engineers gives more bench depth than most boutique firms on this list |
| + | IoT and embedded work sits alongside broader software delivery experience in fintech and e-commerce |
| - | Firmware is one of several practice areas rather than the company's sole focus |
| - | Public, named firmware case studies are less prominent than the company's broader IoT portfolio |
| 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 WebbyLab?
A typical fit: industrial IoT device needing firmware, edge computing, and a cloud dashboard delivered together.
Covers device firmware, edge computing, and cloud dashboards as one delivery team instead of separate vendors. Minimum engagement is not publicly disclosed. Works best with clients in Industrial IoT, Fintech, E-commerce.
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: WebbyLab vs Very
| Your situation | Recommended choice |
|---|---|
| You need full-ownership delivery on a defined project scope | WebbyLab |
| You need a large dedicated team for an ongoing programme | WebbyLab |
| Your budget is at the lower end | Compare: WebbyLab (Not published) vs Very (Not published) |
| You need specialist depth in a specific vertical | WebbyLab |
| 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: WebbyLab vs Very
| Use case | WebbyLab fit | Very fit | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Industrial IoT device needing firmware, edge computing, and a cloud dashboard delivered together | Strong | Limited | WebbyLab |
| Smart product requiring AI-driven analytics built on top of device telemetry | Strong | Strong | Both equally |
| IoT program needing firmware paired with machine-learning-driven data analysis | Strong | Strong | Both equally |
| Smart infrastructure product requiring both device firmware and interface design | Strong | Strong | Both equally |
| Fixed-price build | Limited | Limited | Both equally |
| Staff augmentation | Limited | Limited | Both equally |
Verdict: WebbyLab vs Very
WebbyLab (4.3/5) is the stronger overall choice for most Firmware Development projects. Covers device firmware, edge computing, and cloud dashboards as one delivery team instead of separate vendors.
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
WebbyLab vs Very FAQ
Is WebbyLab better than Very?
WebbyLab (4.3/5) scores higher overall, but "better" depends on your use case. WebbyLab's strongest advantage: full-cycle delivery from device firmware through cloud dashboards reduces the number of vendors a client needs to coordinate. Very's strongest advantage: repeat appearances on the Inc. 5000 list provide a verifiable third-party growth signal.
How do WebbyLab and Very differ in pricing?
WebbyLab uses full-cycle engineering engagements 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: WebbyLab 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 WebbyLab and Very?
WebbyLab's primary differentiator is: covers device firmware, edge computing, and cloud dashboards as one delivery team instead of separate vendors. Very's primary differentiator is: fully distributed IoT team combining firmware delivery with machine-learning-driven data solutions. They also differ in team size (120+ vs 51–200), minimum engagement (Not published vs Not published), and primary industries served (Industrial IoT, Fintech vs Industrial IoT, Consumer IoT).
Verify all details directly with each company before making a decision.