About KreweCode
KreweCode has been in business since 2024, delivering technology projects for clients. Their core services include Custom Software Development. KreweCode employs 10 - 49 people. Projects are generally billed around $25 - $49 / hr/hr. Clients have rated KreweCode 5.0 out of 5 in 2 reviews. KreweCode operates out of Thibodaux, LA. This profile is a starting point — reach out to KreweCode directly to discuss project specifics.
Where We Specialize
Industry Expertise
Typical Project Size
KreweCode Reviews
Write a ReviewPenetration test that found things our previous vendor had missed for two consecutive years
Elliot Thorne / Managing Director, Tech - Redwood Capital AdvisorsJan 23, 2026
Project summary: Digital service standards required all citizen-facing applications to meet accessibility and performance benchmarks that our inherited systems failed. Remediation was not viable — we needed a replacement.
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.
Deep domain knowledge that reduced the discovery overhead significantly, proactive risk identification before issues became incidents, delivery cadence that our stakeholders found reassuring
The quality of documentation they produce means our team needed to set aside dedicated review time to do it justice — a minor scheduling point rather than a genuine criticism
Questions & Answers
Infrastructure-as-code that our SRE team treats as a reference example
Omar Al-Farsi / Chief Technology Officer - Falcon Digital VenturesJan 01, 2026
Project summary: Regulatory submission timelines required a document management platform that could handle version control, access permissions, and audit trails at a scale our existing tools were not designed for.
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.
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
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