About Coding Heads
Coding Heads has been in business since 2012, delivering technology projects for clients. Coding Heads focuses on Web Development and E-commerce Development for clients in industries such as Retail & E-commerce. Coding Heads employs 10 - 49 people. Typical hourly rates run around $50 - $99 / hr/hr. Their home base is Focșani, Romania. This gives a quick snapshot of what to expect when working with Coding Heads.
Where We Specialize
Industry Expertise
Typical Project Size
Coding Heads Reviews
Write a ReviewDevOps toolchain that compressed our two-week release cycle to same-day deployments
Marcus Holloway / SVP of Engineering - Vertex Cloud DynamicsMar 30, 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.
The thing that retrospectively seems most significant is how little drama there was. Complex technology projects tend to accumulate incidents, escalations, and tense conversations. This one did not. Problems were surfaced before they became incidents. Scope changes were handled with process rather than conflict. Risks were managed rather than avoided. That level of maturity is rare in my experience and it made the delivery feel almost effortless from our side, which I know it was not from theirs.
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
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
Smart infrastructure project that paid back the investment in under two quarters
Danielle Westbrook / Chief Digital Officer - BlueSky Retail HoldingsMar 18, 2026
Project summary: The project had a board-facing delivery date tied to a strategic initiative. We needed a partner who would treat that date as their own, not ours.
The project brief was ambitious and we had received proposals ranging from two to five times our eventual budget from other vendors. This team came back with a proposal that was commercially realistic and technically credible — and then delivered against it. That alignment between proposal and outcome is not something I take for granted. I have been on the other side of it enough times to know it requires both honesty in the sales process and discipline in delivery. We experienced both.
Deep domain knowledge that reduced the discovery overhead significantly, proactive risk identification before issues became incidents, delivery cadence that our stakeholders found reassuring
Their insistence on a detailed functional specification before development began felt like friction at the time. In retrospect, it was the reason the development phase ran without the ambiguity that has derailed similar projects for us previously
Questions & Answers
Business system that replaced seven legacy tools and consolidated our data model entirely
Zara Hussain / Head of Technology - Ravi Digital AgencyMar 14, 2026
Project summary: Our actuarial models had outgrown the reporting infrastructure feeding them. Data latency was introducing risk into pricing decisions that the business had decided it could no longer accept.
The project brief was ambitious and we had received proposals ranging from two to five times our eventual budget from other vendors. This team came back with a proposal that was commercially realistic and technically credible — and then delivered against it. That alignment between proposal and outcome is not something I take for granted. I have been on the other side of it enough times to know it requires both honesty in the sales process and discipline in delivery. We experienced both.
Commercially transparent throughout — no hidden assumptions, no bill shock at the end, change requests that were fair and clearly explained rather than used as a margin-recovery mechanism
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
Technically rigorous, commercially grounded, and a genuine pleasure to work with
Gustavo Ferreira / VP of Technology - Amazônia Digital LtdaMar 04, 2026
Project summary: Integration between our clinic management system and our patient-facing app had been a recurring failure point. We needed an engineering partner who could own the integration layer end to end.
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.
Senior-level engineering presence throughout the entire project, not just during the pitch, honest and commercially fair handling of scope changes, codebase that our internal team praised on review
Time zone coordination required some deliberate overlap management from both sides in the first couple of sprints, after which we had an efficient async rhythm that worked for the whole project
Questions & Answers
Analytics foundation that lets us answer attribution questions we had given up asking
Flynn Buchanan / GM of Technology - Pacific Rim Commerce GroupJan 29, 2026
Project summary: Our internal product thinking was strong but our execution capability in this specific technology domain was limited. We needed depth, not generalism.
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.
Delivery timeline that proved achievable rather than optimistic, estimation accuracy that reflected real analysis rather than competitive bidding, scope discipline that prevented the feature creep we had experienced before
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
Questions & Answers
IoT architecture that scaled from pilot to full fleet without a single redesign
Rupert Ashford / Director of eCommerce - Hargrove Retail PLCJan 16, 2026
Project summary: Our connected vehicle platform needed to handle telemetry data from an expanding EV fleet while supporting over-the-air update orchestration. No off-the-shelf platform handled both requirements well.
The project brief was ambitious and we had received proposals ranging from two to five times our eventual budget from other vendors. This team came back with a proposal that was commercially realistic and technically credible — and then delivered against it. That alignment between proposal and outcome is not something I take for granted. I have been on the other side of it enough times to know it requires both honesty in the sales process and discipline in delivery. We experienced both.
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
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