An MVP is a question, not a cheap app. We build the smallest thing that answers the one question your business is actually betting on, and we agree what gets cut before the first sprint rather than during the last one. $40 to $100 per hour, published.
The common failure is not a bad build. It is an MVP that was never pointed at a question. A team ships a smaller version of the full product, learns nothing it did not already believe, and spends the runway finding out. The second failure is the opposite: a prototype held together with shortcuts that quietly becomes the production system because it shipped and nobody wanted to stop.
We make both decisions explicit at the start. What is the one thing we are testing, what evidence would change your mind, and is this codebase meant to survive. Those three answers shape every technical choice after them, and they are cheap to answer in week one and expensive to answer in month six.
Six pieces of work, described so you can tell whether we have done them before.
Tell us the one question you need answered and who has to use the thing. That is enough for a range on the first call.
An MVP is a tool for reducing uncertainty. Where there is no real uncertainty it is a slower way to build the wrong thing.
Unlike traditional services, we use the best methods to quickly and efficiently create advanced technology solutions. Our approach ensures not only speed but also quality, guaranteeing that your project reaches its full potential.
Rates are $40 to $100 per hour by role. Front end build and content work sit near the floor. Architecture, integrations and anything touching payments or compliance sit near the ceiling. A mixed team blends to $60 to $70, and that blend is the number worth planning against rather than either end of the band.
We do not give a fixed price before discovery, because a number quoted before the cut list exists is fiction and you would be paying a padding premium for our uncertainty. You will get an hour band on the first call. Most MVPs run ten to sixteen weeks to something real users touch, and the code sits in your repository from the first commit.
Tell us what you are trying to find out. If a prototype or a spreadsheet answers it faster, you will hear that instead.
Five commitments written so they are checkable rather than flattering. If any of them is not what you want from a partner, better to know now than after a proposal.
Rates are $40 to $100 per hour by role, blending to $60 to $70 on a mixed team. The range on a real MVP is wide because the cut list drives it, not the idea: a single user type with one integration is a different job from a two sided marketplace with payments. We give an hour band on the first call once we know the question you are testing, and a fixed price after discovery.
Ten to sixteen weeks to something real users touch, for most builds. Faster than that usually means a prototype rather than a product, which is a fine answer if a prototype resolves your question. Much slower usually means it was never an MVP and the scope was never cut.
One question, one user type, one path through the product that works properly end to end. The common mistake is three user types each half finished, which produces an app nobody can use and evidence nobody can read. If you cannot name the single question, that is the first thing to fix and it is a conversation, not a project.
That is a decision to make at the start, not a property to discover at the end. Built to be discarded is cheaper and faster and perfectly rational when the question is whether anyone wants it. Built to be extended costs more up front and saves a rebuild if the answer is yes. We will ask which you want, write it down, and tell you honestly at the end what the code can carry.
Yes, before any detail is shared. It is routine and it is not the thing protecting your idea. Execution and distribution are.
You do, from the first commit, in your repository. Cloud, analytics and payment accounts are opened in your name rather than ours. Infrastructure is defined as code so another team can stand it up without us.
Yes, and it tends to work well. We agree the boundary at the start, usually by area rather than by task, and you get the same review standard as our own engineers. The arrangement that does not work is an undefined split, because nobody owns the broken bit.
You get a written assessment covering what the usage data says, what the code can carry and what would have to be rebuilt, with hours attached to each. Then you decide: continue, rebuild, or stop. Stopping is a legitimate outcome and it is what the MVP was for.
Yes, and for an MVP it is usually the same engagement. A clickable prototype before any code is often the fastest way to answer a usability question, and sometimes it answers it well enough that no build is needed yet.
Ask what they would cut from your idea and why. A good answer names specific features and gives a reason tied to the question you are testing. A vague answer, or a quote for everything you described, means they are selling you a small version of the full product rather than an MVP.
Real feedback from the people we've proudly partnered with.
Sales Director |Cintas
United States
Zyneto Global Technologies provided excellent project management and technical expertise throughout the engagement. The team was responsive, collaborative, and adaptive, ensuring the project met our expectations and set a strong foundation for future growth.
Founder & CEO |Moneteo
We engaged Zyneto to design and develop a custom web platform for Moneteo, aimed at improving project management, data tracking, and collaboration across internal teams and external partners. Their work included full-stack web development, custom modules for workflow automation, API integration, and comprehensive testing.
CEO |E-Commerce Platform
Overall, their responsiveness and timely deliveries contributed positively to the project's success. The client achieved better data management and quality. The service provider delivered the project on time and ensured prompt responsiveness throughout the engagement. Their innovative approach was outstanding.
Practical guides and analysis on mvp development, written by the team that builds it.
