About A2solution
A2solution is a software development company that turns ideas into working products. The company's main offerings are Mobile App Development. With 10 - 49 people on staff, A2solution can take on projects of varying size. Projects with this company average about $60,000. This gives a quick snapshot of what to expect when working with A2solution.
Where We Specialize
Industry Expertise
Typical Project Size
A2solution Reviews
Write a ReviewHeadless commerce architecture that gave our content and marketing teams genuine independence
Niamh O'Sullivan / Director of Product - Munster Digital LtdFeb 15, 2026
Project summary: Serialisation requirements under new traceability legislation had a compliance deadline. Our supply chain system required targeted development to meet it — generalist knowledge was not sufficient.
I came into this engagement as a sceptic. We had been through a failed implementation with a previous vendor and I had high standards for what evidence of competence looked like before I would trust a partner with our core systems. This team earned that trust progressively — through the quality of the discovery documentation, the rigour of the technical proposals, the consistency of the sprint deliveries, and ultimately the stability of the production system. I no longer lead with scepticism when recommending them.
Deep domain knowledge that reduced the discovery overhead significantly, proactive risk identification before issues became incidents, delivery cadence that our stakeholders found reassuring
Time zone coordination required some deliberate overlap management from both sides in the first couple of sprints, after which we had an efficient async rhythm that worked for the whole project
Questions & Answers
Headless commerce architecture that gave our content and marketing teams genuine independence
Nisha Pillai / Director of Engineering - GrowthBridge VenturesFeb 09, 2026
Project summary: Several years of incremental development had left us with a platform that was technically functional but strategically limiting. A structured rebuild was the agreed path forward.
What made the most difference in practice was the quality of the engineering judgment on this team. Not the ability to execute a specification — that is a baseline expectation. The ability to recognise when a specification was suboptimal, explain why, propose an alternative, and support the client in making a decision about it. That consultative dimension elevated the output beyond what the brief described and resulted in a product that is more fit for purpose than the one we had originally specified.
Deep domain knowledge that reduced the discovery overhead significantly, proactive risk identification before issues became incidents, delivery cadence that our stakeholders found reassuring
Time zone coordination required some deliberate overlap management from both sides in the first couple of sprints, after which we had an efficient async rhythm that worked for the whole project
Questions & Answers
Security posture transformed from a known liability to a competitive differentiator
Erik Lindqvist / Chief Technology Officer - Nordic Cloud ABJan 04, 2026
Project summary: Our internal product thinking was strong but our execution capability in this specific technology domain was limited. We needed depth, not generalism.
We gave this team an aggressive timeline, a technically complex scope, and a client-side project team that was stretched thin and not always available at the speed the engagement required. They absorbed all of that gracefully. Where they needed input they were precise about what they needed and when. Where they could proceed independently they did. The result was a delivery that landed on time despite the constraints on our side, which I regard as evidence of genuine professional maturity.
Production system that has performed as specified since go-live without remediation work, documentation thorough enough to support internal maintenance, knowledge transfer that left our team genuinely capable
We underestimated the input required from our subject matter experts during the requirements phase. The team flagged this early but our resource planning did not fully reflect it — our responsibility, not theirs