Appify

Write a Review Claim this Company
4.5/5 (12 reviews)
1208002085220307 hello@appify.digital Visit Website

About Appify

Appify works with clients to plan, build, and ship digital products. Appify focuses on Mobile App Development and Web Development. The company operates with a team of 10 - 49 professionals. Typical hourly rates run around $50 - $99 / hr/hr, with an average project cost near $55,000. Appify holds a 5.0-star rating across 24 client reviews. Appify operates out of Tullamore, Ireland. These details offer a useful starting point when evaluating Appify.

Where We Specialize

31% IoT Development
IoT Development 31%
Wearable App Development 31%
Software Development 16%
AI Development 16%
Mobile App Development 6%

Industry Expertise

Manufacturing78% Insurance22%

Typical Project Size

58% Small Business
23% Midmarket Business
19% Enterprise

Appify Reviews

Write a Review

From proof-of-concept to production AI in a timeline that impressed our board

Wei Jian Lim / CTO - Lion City Ventures Pte Ltd
Verified
Apr 10, 2024

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.

The technical quality of the work is the easiest thing to praise, but what I want to highlight is the communication culture on this team. Every question got a same-day response. Every risk got flagged before it became an issue. When we needed to change direction mid-project — a business decision on our side — they absorbed the change professionally, requoted fairly, and kept momentum going. That flexibility is something you cannot assess in a proposal and it turned out to be one of the most valuable things about working with them.

PROS

Collaborative working style that made them feel like an extension of our team, excellent written communication for our async timezone relationship, clean and readable codebase

CONS

Honestly nothing worth documenting — we went in with high expectations and they were met on every measure

5.0
Overall
5.0
Quality
5.0
Schedule
5.0
Cost
5.0
Communication
Project TypeAI & Machine Learning
IndustryAerospace & Defense
Project Cost$50,000 to $149,999
DurationFeb 2025 – Jul 2025

Questions & Answers

Please describe your company, your role, and the industry you operate in.
I lead technology at Lion City Ventures Pte Ltd, a mid-sized organisation in the Aerospace & Defense sector headquartered in Singapore. My remit as CTO 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 existing AI & Machine Learning capability had accumulated years of technical debt that was slowing every new feature to a crawl. Incident frequency was rising, developer confidence was falling, and we knew a rebuild was overdue. We needed a partner with the depth to do it properly rather than apply another layer of patches.
What services did the company provide for your project?
The full AI & Machine Learning 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?
Price was a factor but not the deciding one. They were mid-range in our evaluation. What tipped it was the combination of their technical depth in AI & Machine Learning, the seniority of the team they proposed to assign to our account, and the clarity of their project governance model. We had been burned by an agency that overpromised before and we needed to see evidence of process maturity.
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?
The project management was the best I have experienced in a vendor relationship. We had fortnightly sprint reviews with structured agendas, a shared backlog that we could inspect at any point, a risk register that was actively maintained rather than created at kickoff and never opened again, and a project manager who treated our time as something worth protecting. Communication was proactive, not reactive.
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 Aerospace & Defense 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 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 Aerospace & Defense domain where context takes time to build.
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 AI & Machine Learning engagement, this team is the answer.

From proof-of-concept to production AI in a timeline that impressed our board

Zoe Carmichael / Head of Innovation - Red Centre Technologies
Verified
May 19, 2023

Project summary: Regulatory changes required us to rebuild our client reporting module from the ground up with full audit trail, real-time data, and a compliant data residency model.

We ran a structured RFP with seven vendors. Three made it to the technical evaluation stage. This team won on the strength of their technical proposal, their domain knowledge, and frankly on the quality of the questions they asked us during the process. A vendor who asks good questions in the sales phase tends to ask good questions during delivery too. That hypothesis proved correct. The project is now live, performing above the KPIs we agreed, and our stakeholders are genuinely impressed.

PROS

Architectural decisions that will serve us for years rather than just solving the immediate problem, knowledge transfer that left our team genuinely capable, no scope creep at all

CONS

The volume of quality documentation they produced was genuinely impressive but also meant our team needed dedicated time to review it properly — a minor process point, not a complaint

5.0
Overall
5.0
Quality
5.0
Schedule
5.0
Cost
5.0
Communication
Project TypeAI & Machine Learning
IndustryFinancial Services
Project CostLess than $10,000
DurationMar 2025 – Jul 2025

Questions & Answers

Please describe your company, your role, and the industry you operate in.
Red Centre Technologies is a Financial Services business based in Melbourne, Australia. As Head of Innovation I am responsible for all technology investment decisions, vendor selection, and ensuring our digital capabilities match our growth ambitions. We operate in a competitive market where the quality of our software directly affects our ability to win and retain clients.
What specific problem or business challenge led you to hire this company?
Growth into new markets had exposed serious limitations in our platform. What had worked for our original user base in Melbourne, Australia was not going to scale internationally, and the AI & Machine Learning requirements for those new markets were meaningfully different. We needed a partner who had solved that kind of problem before.
What services did the company provide for your project?
The core engagement was AI & Machine Learning 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?
A direct referral from a peer who had used them for a comparable AI & Machine Learning engagement in the Financial Services space. That peer's experience had been excellent and their project profile was similar enough to ours that the recommendation carried real weight. Everything we found during our own evaluation reinforced that this was the right decision.
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?
Communication was handled primarily asynchronously given the time zone difference between Melbourne, Australia 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. I will note that the original timeline was aggressive and I had privately expected a slip. They managed to hold it by making smart sequencing decisions early on that I only fully understood in retrospect. The budget discipline was equally good — we received a single change request for scope we had introduced ourselves and it was priced fairly.
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 AI & Machine Learning platform shows a meaningful improvement in the metrics that matter to our Financial Services 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 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 AI & Machine Learning expertise, Financial Services domain knowledge, and delivery discipline is genuinely difficult to find. We found it here and we intend to keep it.

FAQs

What services does Appify offer?
Appify provides software development services that may include mobile app development, web development, custom software development, UI/UX design, cloud solutions, AI development, and enterprise application development. Its core focus areas include Content Management System, Custom Software Development, E-commerce Development, Game Development and Mobile App Development.
How much does it cost to hire Appify?
The cost of hiring Appify depends on factors such as project complexity, development hours, required technologies, team size, and engagement model. Based on available data, Appify's typical hourly rate is around $50 - $99, with an average project cost of $10000+.
Which industries does Appify serve?
Appify has experience working with businesses across multiple industries, including Financial Services, Aerospace & Defense, Manufacturing, Telecommunications, Food & Beverage and Automotive.
How long does Appify 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 2 - 9 professionals, Appify can scale resources based on project urgency.
Why should businesses choose Appify?
Businesses may choose Appify based on factors such as technical expertise, industry experience, client reviews, development methodology, communication practices, and the ability to deliver scalable software solutions that align with business objectives. Founded in 2011, the company has built a track record of delivering projects across various industries.
Does Appify provide post-launch support and maintenance?
Many software development companies, including Appify, offer ongoing maintenance, bug fixes, performance optimization, security updates, feature enhancements, and technical support after project deployment. For context, it has served clients in USA, and it reports a team size of 2 - 9 professionals.
Does Appify offer dedicated developers?
Yes, many companies like Appify provide a dedicated developer hiring model, allowing businesses to scale their in-house team with experienced professionals who work exclusively on their project. For context, it has experience across industries such as Financial Services, Aerospace & Defense, Manufacturing, Telecommunications, Food & Beverage and Automotive, and it has served clients in USA.
Can Appify build AI-powered applications?
Many modern software development companies, including Appify, offer AI and machine learning integration services such as chatbots, predictive analytics, computer vision, and intelligent automation. For context, it has served clients in USA, and its average project cost is reported at $10000+.
What is Appify's software development process?
Appify typically follows a structured software development process that may include requirement analysis, UI/UX design, agile development sprints, quality assurance testing, deployment, and post-launch support. For context, it has served clients in USA, and it has experience across industries such as Financial Services, Aerospace & Defense, Manufacturing, Telecommunications, Food & Beverage and Automotive.
How do I request a proposal from Appify?
You can request a proposal from Appify 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 Content Management System, Custom Software Development, E-commerce Development, Game Development and Mobile App Development, and it has served clients in USA.

Company Info

Founded 2019
Employees 10 - 49
Hourly Rate $50 - $99 / hr
Avg. Project Cost $55,000+
Client Rating 4.5/5 (12 reviews)

Rating Breakdown

Quality
4.6
Schedule
4.4
Cost
4.6
Communication
4.5