Frank Belford

Write a Review Claim this Company
5.0/5 (3 reviews)
+NA info@frankbelford.com Visit Website

About Frank Belford

Operating under the name Frank Belford since 2016, this development firm has grown into a team of 10 to 49 people offering a wide-ranging set of capabilities. Its service list covers mobile app development, cross platform app development, UI-UX design, enterprise app modernization, Unity 3D game development, web development, and custom software development, making it one of the more versatile providers in its segment. This breadth allows the company to support clients across very different project types, from modernizing legacy enterprise systems to building consumer-facing mobile experiences with polished interfaces. Charging $150 to $199 per hour, Frank Belford sits in the upper-mid pricing tier, consistent with a firm handling both design-intensive and technically complex modernization work. The inclusion of enterprise app modernization alongside newer disciplines like Unity 3D development suggests a team capable of serving both established businesses maintaining older systems and newer ventures building interactive or gaming-adjacent products, all under one roof.

Services

Mobile App Development Web Development Unity 3D Game Development UI-UX Design Custom Software Development Enterprise App Modernization Cross Platform App Development

Industries Served

Agriculture Insurance Nonprofit & NGO

Frank Belford Reviews

Write a Review

Web development done properly — performant, scalable, and a joy to maintain

Kenji Watanabe / General Manager, IT - Tokai Digital KK
Verified
May 10, 2025

Project summary: The project had both a hard delivery date tied to a board commitment and a scope that our previous agency had told us was not achievable. We needed someone to prove otherwise.

Our previous agency had given us a platform that worked well enough to demo and fell apart under real load. This team came in, diagnosed the root causes accurately, and rebuilt the critical components without disrupting the live service. The performance improvements were immediate and measurable — page load times dropped by 60 percent, error rates dropped to near zero, and our support team has far fewer incidents to deal with. The contrast with our previous experience could not have been sharper.

PROS

Engineering quality that our internal team can maintain without calling the vendor, thorough documentation, proactive risk identification throughout the project

CONS

The initial project brief document they required was more detailed than we were used to providing, but in hindsight that rigour was part of why the project ran so smoothly

5.0
Overall
5.0
Quality
5.0
Schedule
5.0
Cost
5.0
Communication
Project TypeWeb Development
IndustryAgriculture
Project Cost$50,000 to $149,999
DurationAug 2025 – Apr 2026

Questions & Answers

Please describe your company, your role, and the industry you operate in.
I lead technology at Tokai Digital KK, a mid-sized organisation in the Agriculture sector headquartered in Tokyo, Japan. My remit as General Manager, IT covers everything from infrastructure to product development. We had reached a point where our internal engineering capacity was not sufficient to execute our roadmap without an experienced external partner.
What specific problem or business challenge led you to hire this company?
We had a product concept validated by market research but no clear path to build it within our budget and timeline constraints. Our Agriculture competitors were moving quickly and we could not afford to spend eighteen months finding out a generalist agency could not execute the Web Development work our product required.
What services did the company provide for your project?
End-to-end Web Development delivery with a particular emphasis on the integration layer that connected the new build to our existing Agriculture infrastructure. They also provided UI/UX input that was not in the original scope but which they offered proactively because they could see it would affect adoption. That kind of initiative was characteristic of how they approached the whole engagement.
Why did you choose this company over other providers you considered?
Honestly, the quality of the questions they asked during the briefing process set them apart. Most vendors listen to the brief and come back with a solution to exactly what you described. This team came back with a solution to what we actually needed, which turned out to be somewhat different. That kind of consultative instinct is what we were looking for.
How clearly did the company understand your requirements and business goals?
Thorough and precise. They translated our business language into technical requirements without losing the intent, which is a skill that sounds straightforward but frequently goes wrong. Every user story they wrote was reviewed against the original business objective before it entered the sprint and the acceptance criteria were specific enough to remove subjectivity from QA.
How was your overall experience with their communication and project management?
Outstanding. I have worked with agencies that communicate beautifully during the sales process and go quiet during delivery. This was the opposite — structured, consistent, and genuinely informative throughout. Problems were surfaced early with proposed solutions rather than just problem statements, which made the inevitable mid-project decisions much easier to make.
Did the company deliver the project on time and within your expected budget?
The project landed on the agreed delivery date and within the approved budget. We did add scope during the engagement — two features that became apparent as essential during user testing — and those were quoted, approved, and delivered without affecting the original scope timeline. That kind of clean change management is not something you can take for granted.
What tangible results or business impact have you seen since the project was completed?
The ROI case we presented to our board assumed a payback period of eighteen months. Based on current trajectory we will hit that in under a year. The efficiency gains in our Agriculture operations have been more significant than the model projected, partly because the quality of the data coming out of the new system is enabling decisions we could not make before.
What did you like most about working with this company?
The post-launch behaviour. Some agencies disappear the moment the final invoice is paid. This team maintained the same level of responsiveness during the hypercare period as during development, handed over thorough documentation without being asked twice, and checked in proactively a month after go-live to review performance metrics with us. That last part was entirely unprompted.
Would you recommend this company to others, and would you work with them again?
I recommend them to anyone who asks and occasionally to people who do not. The combination of Web Development expertise, Agriculture domain knowledge, and delivery discipline is genuinely difficult to find. We found it here and we intend to keep it.

AWS setup that scales automatically — we stopped worrying about traffic spikes

Natalie Tremblay / Director of Engineering - Boreal Digital Inc
Verified
Mar 08, 2025

Project summary: Underwriting decisions that should have taken minutes were taking days because of a legacy policy administration system that predated modern API architecture.

The thing I appreciate most in retrospect is that they were honest when something was harder than expected. Twice during the project the team came to us proactively to say that a particular component needed more time to do properly and explained why cutting corners would create problems later. We gave them the time. Both decisions were correct. The resulting product is solid and we have had none of the post-launch instability that plagued our last two technology projects.

PROS

Domain knowledge that went beyond generic expertise into our specific industry, willingness to push back constructively, automated test coverage that gave us deployment confidence

CONS

The initial project brief document they required was more detailed than we were used to providing, but in hindsight that rigour was part of why the project ran so smoothly

5.0
Overall
5.0
Quality
5.0
Schedule
5.0
Cost
5.0
Communication
Project TypeCloud Services
IndustryInsurance
Project Cost$500,000+
DurationAug 2025 – Mar 2026

Questions & Answers

Please describe your company, your role, and the industry you operate in.
I lead technology at Boreal Digital Inc, a mid-sized organisation in the Insurance sector headquartered in Montreal, Canada. My remit as Director of Engineering covers everything from infrastructure to product development. We had reached a point where our internal engineering capacity was not sufficient to execute our roadmap without an experienced external partner.
What specific problem or business challenge led you to hire this company?
We had a product concept validated by market research but no clear path to build it within our budget and timeline constraints. Our Insurance competitors were moving quickly and we could not afford to spend eighteen months finding out a generalist agency could not execute the Cloud Services work our product required.
What services did the company provide for your project?
End-to-end Cloud Services delivery with a particular emphasis on the integration layer that connected the new build to our existing Insurance infrastructure. They also provided UI/UX input that was not in the original scope but which they offered proactively because they could see it would affect adoption. That kind of initiative was characteristic of how they approached the whole engagement.
Why did you choose this company over other providers you considered?
Their portfolio included two projects that were sufficiently close to our own brief in terms of complexity, Cloud Services scope, and Insurance context that we felt confident they understood what we were asking. The proposal was technically rigorous, the pricing was transparent, and the proposed team structure gave us senior engineers throughout rather than just for the pitch.
How clearly did the company understand your requirements and business goals?
Extremely well. They asked detailed questions, challenged vague requirements until they were specific, and proposed sensible defaults for decisions we had not yet made rather than just leaving them open. By the time development started there was no ambiguity in the backlog, which is a rare starting position.
How was your overall experience with their communication and project management?
Professional and efficient. We used a shared project management tool that gave our stakeholders visibility without requiring them to attend every meeting. The project manager had a clear escalation path and used it appropriately. The only time I needed to intervene directly was when I chose to, not because something had been missed.
Did the company deliver the project on time and within your expected budget?
Yes on both counts. There was one sprint where a third-party integration took longer than scoped because of undocumented API behaviour on the vendor side. The team flagged it immediately, proposed two mitigation options, and we agreed on an approach that recovered the timeline within two weeks. That is how scope issues should be handled and rarely are.
What tangible results or business impact have you seen since the project was completed?
The most direct measure is that the problem we hired them to solve no longer exists. Beyond that, the new Cloud Services platform has reduced our operational overhead measurably, our team spends less time managing incidents and more time on product development, and we have been able to onboard two new enterprise clients who had previously cited our technical limitations as a barrier.
What did you like most about working with this company?
The quality of the written communication. This matters more than most clients articulate. Clear, concise, technically accurate updates that our non-technical stakeholders could read and understand. Proposals and change requests that made the decision obvious rather than obscuring it in jargon. That communication quality reduced our internal coordination overhead significantly.
Would you recommend this company to others, and would you work with them again?
Yes. The referral I would give comes with context: they are not the cheapest option and they are not the fastest to schedule. If you are optimising purely on price or looking for someone to start tomorrow, there are other choices. If you want the work done properly and a partner you can trust with a complex, high-stakes Cloud Services engagement, this team is the answer.

Execution that matched the sales pitch — which is rarer than it should be

Pooja Venkataraman / VP of Engineering - Navya FinServ Solutions
Verified
Aug 02, 2023

Project summary: Our existing platform had grown organically over several years and the accumulated technical debt was beginning to affect both performance and our ability to ship new features.

Project governance was one of the things that impressed me most. We had a dedicated project manager who ran tight fortnightly sprints with clear acceptance criteria, a shared backlog that gave us full visibility at all times, and a change request process that was fair and transparent. Nothing slipped through the cracks, no bill shock at the end, and the final delivery matched the original scope document almost perfectly. In my experience that kind of discipline is genuinely uncommon.

PROS

Engineering quality that our internal team can maintain without calling the vendor, thorough documentation, proactive risk identification throughout the project

CONS

The initial project brief document they required was more detailed than we were used to providing, but in hindsight that rigour was part of why the project ran so smoothly

5.0
Overall
5.0
Quality
5.0
Schedule
5.0
Cost
5.0
Communication
Project TypeLow-Code / No-Code Development
IndustryNonprofit & NGO
Project CostLess than $10,000
DurationMar 2025 – Jan 2026

Questions & Answers

Please describe your company, your role, and the industry you operate in.
I lead technology at Navya FinServ Solutions, a mid-sized organisation in the Nonprofit & NGO sector headquartered in Chennai, India. My remit as VP of Engineering covers everything from infrastructure to product development. We had reached a point where our internal engineering capacity was not sufficient to execute our roadmap without an experienced external partner.
What specific problem or business challenge led you to hire this company?
Our Nonprofit & NGO regulatory environment had changed and the compliance timeline was non-negotiable. We needed to rebuild specific components of our system to meet the new requirements and our internal team was already fully committed to the core product roadmap. Bringing in a specialist Low-Code / No-Code Development partner was the only realistic path.
What services did the company provide for your project?
The core engagement was Low-Code / No-Code Development but expanded to include technical consultancy during the discovery phase, which helped us refine the requirements significantly before development began. They also took responsibility for coordinating with our third-party data providers, which removed a significant coordination burden from our internal team.
Why did you choose this company over other providers you considered?
Their portfolio included two projects that were sufficiently close to our own brief in terms of complexity, Low-Code / No-Code Development scope, and Nonprofit & NGO context that we felt confident they understood what we were asking. The proposal was technically rigorous, the pricing was transparent, and the proposed team structure gave us senior engineers throughout rather than just for the pitch.
How clearly did the company understand your requirements and business goals?
Thorough and precise. They translated our business language into technical requirements without losing the intent, which is a skill that sounds straightforward but frequently goes wrong. Every user story they wrote was reviewed against the original business objective before it entered the sprint and the acceptance criteria were specific enough to remove subjectivity from QA.
How was your overall experience with their communication and project management?
Outstanding. I have worked with agencies that communicate beautifully during the sales process and go quiet during delivery. This was the opposite — structured, consistent, and genuinely informative throughout. Problems were surfaced early with proposed solutions rather than just problem statements, which made the inevitable mid-project decisions much easier to make.
Did the company deliver the project on time and within your expected budget?
Yes on both counts. There was one sprint where a third-party integration took longer than scoped because of undocumented API behaviour on the vendor side. The team flagged it immediately, proposed two mitigation options, and we agreed on an approach that recovered the timeline within two weeks. That is how scope issues should be handled and rarely are.
What tangible results or business impact have you seen since the project was completed?
Hard to isolate precisely because several factors changed simultaneously, but the data we can attribute directly to the new Low-Code / No-Code Development platform shows a meaningful improvement in the metrics that matter to our Nonprofit & NGO business. Our account managers report that the new capability is coming up positively in client conversations, which was one of the strategic objectives we started with.
What did you like most about working with this company?
The continuity of the team. The engineers who scoped the work were the engineers who built it. That sounds like it should be standard practice but in my experience it often is not. The institutional knowledge that comes from that continuity pays dividends at every stage, particularly when you are dealing with a complex Nonprofit & NGO domain where context takes time to build.
Would you recommend this company to others, and would you work with them again?
Absolutely. I would recommend them with a specific note that the quality of the discovery process is where the value starts. Clients who invest properly in that phase will get the most out of the engagement. We made that investment and the returns are evident in the quality of what was delivered.

FAQs

What technologies does Frank Belford specialize in?
Depending on the project requirements, Frank Belford may work with technologies such as React, Angular, Vue.js, Node.js, Python, .NET, Java, PHP, Flutter, React Native, iOS, Android, AWS, Azure, AI, and cloud platforms. For context, its listed capabilities span Mobile App Development, Cross Platform App Development, UI-UX Design, Enterprise App Modernization and Unity 3D Game Development, and it reports a team size of 10 - 49 professionals.
How long does Frank Belford take to complete a software project?
Project timelines vary depending on scope and complexity. A simple MVP may take a few weeks, while enterprise software or large-scale digital transformation projects can require several months of development, testing, and deployment. With a team of 10 - 49 professionals, Frank Belford can scale resources based on project urgency.
Does Frank Belford provide post-launch support and maintenance?
Many software development companies, including Frank Belford, offer ongoing maintenance, bug fixes, performance optimization, security updates, feature enhancements, and technical support after project deployment. For context, its listed capabilities span Mobile App Development, Cross Platform App Development, UI-UX Design, Enterprise App Modernization and Unity 3D Game Development, and it has been operating since 2016.
How can I contact Frank Belford for a project?
Businesses can contact Frank Belford through its official website, email, or contact form to discuss project requirements, request a consultation, or receive a development estimate. For context, it has experience across industries such as Nonprofit & NGO, Agriculture and Insurance, and it has been operating since 2016.
How do I choose the right software development company?
When selecting a software development company like Frank Belford, consider its portfolio, client reviews, industry expertise, technical capabilities, communication process, pricing model, project management approach, and post-launch support. For context, it has experience across industries such as Nonprofit & NGO, Agriculture and Insurance, and its typical hourly rate is around $150 - $199.
Can Frank Belford build AI-powered applications?
Many modern software development companies, including Frank Belford, offer AI and machine learning integration services such as chatbots, predictive analytics, computer vision, and intelligent automation. For context, it has experience across industries such as Nonprofit & NGO, Agriculture and Insurance, and it reports a team size of 10 - 49 professionals.
Does Frank Belford sign an NDA before starting a project?
Most professional software development companies, including Frank Belford, are willing to sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) to protect client data and project confidentiality before development begins. For context, its listed capabilities span Mobile App Development, Cross Platform App Development, UI-UX Design, Enterprise App Modernization and Unity 3D Game Development, and it reports a team size of 10 - 49 professionals.
Which countries does Frank Belford serve?
Frank Belford may serve clients across multiple countries and regions, depending on market demand and business partnerships.
Can Frank Belford modernize legacy software?
Frank Belford may provide legacy software modernization services, including re-platforming, code refactoring, and migration to modern frameworks or cloud infrastructure to improve performance and maintainability. For context, it has experience across industries such as Nonprofit & NGO, Agriculture and Insurance, and it reports a team size of 10 - 49 professionals.

Company Info

Founded 2016
Employees 10 - 49
Hourly Rate $150 - $199
Avg. Project Cost $2,500,000+
Client Rating 5.0/5 (3 reviews)

Rating Breakdown

Quality
5.0
Schedule
5.0
Cost
5.0
Communication
5.0