FUTURO

Write a Review Claim this Company
4.5/5 (13 reviews)
+380953478998 hello@futuro.team Visit Website

About FUTURO

They understand each other and the better is the product they create. They apply this both to their internal team and clients. That’s why we always prefer a long time partnership. They analyze, ask questions, offer the most relevant solutions at every stage of the project. Their team has deep expertise in transforming ideas into successful and powerful technology resolutions to optimize your current processes and boost profits.

Services

Mobile App Development Web Development UI-UX Design Web Design Blockchain Development

Industries Served

Environmental Services Legal Services Manufacturing

FUTURO Reviews

Write a Review

Virtual environment that our remote team now uses as their primary collaboration space

Matthieu Renard / Directeur Technique - Lumière Technologies SAS
Verified
Feb 20, 2026

Project summary: A previous engagement had delivered something that worked in staging and struggled in production. We approached this project with greater rigour in vendor selection as a result.

Six months after go-live our platform is processing three times the transaction volume we specified in the original brief. The architecture choices made during discovery accommodated that growth without remediation work. That is the difference between a team that designs for what you tell them and a team that designs for what you are likely to need. We are in conversation about a Phase 2 engagement and I expect to be using this partnership for several years.

PROS

Deep domain knowledge that reduced the discovery overhead significantly, proactive risk identification before issues became incidents, delivery cadence that our stakeholders found reassuring

CONS

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

4.5
Overall
4.0
Quality
4.5
Schedule
4.5
Cost
4.5
Communication
Project TypeAR/VR Development
IndustryEnvironmental Services
Project Cost$150,000 to $499,999
DurationSep 2025 – Jan 2026

Questions & Answers

Please describe your company, your role, and the industry you operate in.
I lead technology at Lumière Technologies SAS, a growth-stage Environmental Services business based in Paris, France. As Directeur Technique my remit spans product engineering, platform operations, and strategic vendor partnerships. We had reached an inflection point where our internal capacity was not sufficient to execute our roadmap at the pace our market required.
What specific problem or business challenge led you to hire this company?
Regulatory requirements in our Environmental Services segment had changed and the compliance timeline was set by our regulator, not by us. The AR/VR Development changes required were significant enough to justify engaging a specialist partner rather than diverting our internal team from the product roadmap.
What services did the company provide for your project?
The core engagement was AR/VR Development delivery, though their scope expanded to include technical consultancy during discovery that materially improved our requirements. They also took ownership of the third-party integration workstream that had been a coordination challenge in previous projects, removing that complexity from our internal team entirely.
Why did you choose this company over other providers you considered?
A trusted peer in the Environmental Services sector had used them for a comparable AR/VR Development engagement and their recommendation was unequivocal. Our own due diligence confirmed the pattern they described. The combination of domain knowledge, AR/VR Development depth, and demonstrated delivery discipline was the deciding factor.
How clearly did the company understand your requirements and business goals?
Extremely well, in part because they had relevant Environmental Services experience that reduced the context-setting overhead significantly. They understood the domain vocabulary, asked the right questions, and translated business requirements into technical specifications with a fidelity that meant the development phase had very few clarification cycles.
How was your overall experience with their communication and project management?
Communication was proactive, timely, and appropriately calibrated. Technical updates for the engineering audience, executive summaries for the steering group, risk flags with proposed mitigations rather than just problem statements. The fortnightly sprint reviews gave our stakeholders visibility without requiring them to attend every working session.
Did the company deliver the project on time and within your expected budget?
Yes. I had privately built a contingency expectation into my planning given the project complexity and the number of integrations involved. None of that contingency was needed. The delivery landed on the agreed date and the final invoice matched the approved budget to within a fraction of a percent. That outcome is rarer than the industry acknowledges.
What tangible results or business impact have you seen since the project was completed?
The ROI case we presented to our board was conservative by design. Current performance against the financial model suggests we will hit the projected payback point in under twelve months against an eighteen-month target. The operational efficiency gains in particular have exceeded the model, in part because the quality of the data the new platform generates supports decisions that the previous system could not.
What did you like most about working with this company?
The continuity of the team. The engineers who participated in the discovery sessions were the engineers who built the system. That consistency of institutional knowledge across a six-month project has a value that is difficult to quantify but easy to notice when it is absent. Every conversation built on the previous ones.
Would you recommend this company to others, and would you work with them again?
Absolutely. With a specific note that the value starts in the discovery phase — clients who approach that process with seriousness will get the most from the engagement. We invested appropriately at the front end and the returns are evident in what was delivered.

Technically excellent, commercially aware, and genuinely pleasant to work with

Connor MacLeod / CTO - Pacific Ventures Group
Verified
Jan 06, 2026

Project summary: Document review and contract lifecycle management were consuming a disproportionate amount of fee-earner time that should have been spent on higher-value advisory work.

Our industry has specific compliance requirements that many generalist agencies struggle with. This team came with working knowledge of the relevant frameworks, asked pointed questions about our obligations, and built controls into the architecture rather than bolting them on at the end. Our compliance team reviewed the delivered system and had only minor observations, which is genuinely unusual for a first-pass review. That domain awareness saved us significant remediation cost.

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 TypeLow-Code / No-Code Development
IndustryLegal Services
Project Cost$150,000 to $499,999
DurationNov 2024 – May 2025

Questions & Answers

Please describe your company, your role, and the industry you operate in.
As CTO at Pacific Ventures Group, I manage a cross-functional technology team serving our Legal Services clients from Vancouver, Canada. We are a commercially focused organisation and every technology decision we make is evaluated against a clear business case. We needed a partner who understood that context, not just the technical brief.
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 Legal Services competitors were moving quickly and we could not afford to spend eighteen months finding out a generalist agency could not execute the Low-Code / No-Code Development work our product required.
What services did the company provide for your project?
The full Low-Code / No-Code Development lifecycle from discovery through to production deployment and hypercare support. This included requirements workshops, solution architecture, sprint-based development, QA and automated testing, deployment to our cloud environment, and a structured handover with documentation. They also provided a brief post-launch period of dedicated support which was genuinely useful.
Why did you choose this company over other providers you considered?
We evaluated four vendors in total. Two were eliminated after the technical assessment stage because their proposed architectures showed a surface-level understanding of what we needed. This team's proposal demonstrated genuine depth in Low-Code / No-Code Development and specific knowledge of the Legal Services sector that the others could not match. The reference calls confirmed a consistent pattern of delivery.
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?
Communication was handled primarily asynchronously given the time zone difference between Vancouver, Canada and the team's base, but it was managed so well that the gap rarely felt like a constraint. Written updates were clear and timely, escalations were handled promptly, and we never had to chase for a status update. The cadence was exactly right — enough to feel informed, not so much that it created overhead.
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 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 Legal Services 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 intellectual honesty. They told us when something we wanted was a bad idea and explained why. They told us when a timeline was tight and gave us options. They did not tell us what we wanted to hear in order to win work or avoid a difficult conversation. In a long engagement that kind of relationship is far more valuable than an agency that just says yes.
Would you recommend this company to others, and would you work with them again?
Unreservedly. We are in active conversation about the next phase of work and I expect this to become a multi-year partnership. For any organisation in the Legal Services space looking for a Low-Code / No-Code Development partner who combines technical rigour with genuine commercial awareness, I would put this team at the top of the shortlist.

Immersive experience that generated more media coverage than anything we had shipped before

Marcus Holloway / SVP of Engineering - Vertex Cloud Dynamics
Verified
Jan 05, 2026

Project summary: Unplanned downtime had become our single largest cost driver and our data showed that predictive maintenance could address the majority of it — if we had the right infrastructure to act on it.

The technical quality of the final deliverable is the easiest thing to point to. The automated test coverage is thorough, the deployment pipeline is reliable, the documentation is genuinely useful rather than ceremonially produced. But the metric I keep returning to is the number of post-launch conversations we have not had to have. No incident calls at two in the morning. No emergency patches. No retrospective discussions about what went wrong. The absence of those events is the evidence I would show to someone considering this vendor.

PROS

Architectural decisions designed for longevity rather than just the current brief, thorough automated test coverage, post-launch stability that validated every technical choice made during discovery

CONS

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

4.5
Overall
4.0
Quality
5.0
Schedule
4.5
Cost
4.5
Communication
Project TypeAR/VR Development
IndustryManufacturing
Project Cost$500,000+
DurationJan 2025 – Nov 2025

Questions & Answers

Please describe your company, your role, and the industry you operate in.
Vertex Cloud Dynamics is an established Manufacturing organisation headquartered in Austin, USA. My role as SVP of Engineering covers both strategic planning and operational technology delivery. We maintain high standards for our vendors because our clients hold us to high standards — a bar we expect our partners to meet.
What specific problem or business challenge led you to hire this company?
A competitive threat had accelerated our roadmap. We had planned a significant AR/VR Development investment for the following year. External pressure moved that timeline forward by six months and required us to find an external partner rather than attempting to build internally in the time available.
What services did the company provide for your project?
End-to-end AR/VR Development delivery with particular depth in the integration and data migration components, which were the highest-risk elements of the programme. They supplemented this with a dedicated QA resource throughout development and a documented runbook for our operations team at handover.
Why did you choose this company over other providers you considered?
We had a failed engagement behind us and were more rigorous in our selection process as a result. We asked detailed questions about how they managed scope change, how they handled estimation, and how they communicated problems. The answers were specific, evidenced, and consistent across the team members we spoke to. That gave us confidence that the process was real rather than rehearsed.
How clearly did the company understand your requirements and business goals?
Thoroughly and precisely. The requirements document they produced was detailed enough that our QA team used it directly to write acceptance criteria. Every user story had a defined business objective attached. Nothing was left to interpretation. That discipline in the requirements phase paid dividends throughout development and testing.
How was your overall experience with their communication and project management?
Communication was proactive, timely, and appropriately calibrated. Technical updates for the engineering audience, executive summaries for the steering group, risk flags with proposed mitigations rather than just problem statements. The fortnightly sprint reviews gave our stakeholders visibility without requiring them to attend every working session.
Did the company deliver the project on time and within your expected budget?
Yes to both. There was a single sprint where a dependency on a third-party API introduced a one-week delay. The team identified it three weeks in advance, presented two mitigation options, and we agreed on an approach that recovered the schedule within the same sprint cycle. That level of foresight is what separates good project management from reactive problem management.
What tangible results or business impact have you seen since the project was completed?
We went live four months ago. User adoption exceeded the target we had set by 23 percent in the first month. Support ticket volume has dropped measurably. The features we had deferred because the previous architecture made them prohibitively expensive to build are now in development. The platform they built has opened our roadmap.
What did you like most about working with this company?
The willingness to be direct. When our requirements were unclear they said so. When our priorities were contradictory they explained why. When a technical approach we had assumed was the right one turned out to have significant downsides, they told us before we had committed to it. That kind of intellectual honesty is what I look for in a long-term technology partner.
Would you recommend this company to others, and would you work with them again?
Yes. I would add the context that this is not the cheapest option in the market and they are selective about the engagements they take on. If your primary criterion is price, there are alternatives. If you want a technology partner who can be trusted with a complex AR/VR Development programme in the Manufacturing space and will deliver against a serious brief, this is the team.

FAQs

How much does it cost to hire FUTURO?
The cost of hiring FUTURO depends on factors such as project complexity, development hours, required technologies, team size, and engagement model. Based on available data, FUTURO's typical hourly rate is around N/A, with an average project cost of $100000+.
Which industries does FUTURO serve?
FUTURO has experience working with businesses across multiple industries, including Education, Legal Services, Travel & Hospitality, Gaming & Gambling, Pharmaceuticals & Biotechnology and Healthcare.
Is FUTURO suitable for startups?
Yes. Many startups choose companies like FUTURO because they offer MVP development, product consulting, scalable architecture, and dedicated development teams that help launch products quickly while managing development costs. For context, its listed capabilities span Blockchain Development, Mobile App Development, UI-UX Design, Web Design and Web Development, and it has been operating since 2017.
What technologies does FUTURO specialize in?
Depending on the project requirements, FUTURO 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 Blockchain Development, Mobile App Development, UI-UX Design, Web Design and Web Development, and its typical hourly rate is around N/A.
Is FUTURO an offshore software development company?
FUTURO may operate as an offshore, onshore, or hybrid software development company depending on its location and the markets it serves. For context, it has experience across industries such as Education, Legal Services, Travel & Hospitality, Gaming & Gambling, Pharmaceuticals & Biotechnology and Healthcare, and its average project cost is reported at $100000+.
What engagement models does FUTURO provide?
FUTURO may offer multiple engagement models such as fixed-price contracts, dedicated team hiring, and time-and-material billing, allowing businesses to choose the option that best fits their budget and project scope. For context, it has experience across industries such as Education, Legal Services, Travel & Hospitality, Gaming & Gambling, Pharmaceuticals & Biotechnology and Healthcare, and its listed capabilities span Blockchain Development, Mobile App Development, UI-UX Design, Web Design and Web Development.
Does FUTURO sign an NDA before starting a project?
Most professional software development companies, including FUTURO, are willing to sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) to protect client data and project confidentiality before development begins. For context, it has experience across industries such as Education, Legal Services, Travel & Hospitality, Gaming & Gambling, Pharmaceuticals & Biotechnology and Healthcare, and its average project cost is reported at $100000+.
Does FUTURO develop SaaS products?
Yes, FUTURO may offer SaaS product development services, including multi-tenant architecture, subscription billing integration, and cloud-native deployment for scalable software-as-a-service solutions. For context, its listed capabilities span Blockchain Development, Mobile App Development, UI-UX Design, Web Design and Web Development, and it has experience across industries such as Education, Legal Services, Travel & Hospitality, Gaming & Gambling, Pharmaceuticals & Biotechnology and Healthcare.
How do I request a proposal from FUTURO?
You can request a proposal from FUTURO by submitting your project requirements through its website contact form, email, or by reaching out directly to discuss your business goals and receive a tailored development estimate. For context, its listed capabilities span Blockchain Development, Mobile App Development, UI-UX Design, Web Design and Web Development, and its average project cost is reported at $100000+.

Company Info

Founded 2017
Employees 10 - 49
Hourly Rate N/A
Avg. Project Cost $35,000+
Client Rating 4.5/5 (13 reviews)

Rating Breakdown

Quality
4.4
Schedule
4.5
Cost
4.5
Communication
4.3