About Exist Global
Businesses looking for a reliable technology partner often consider Exist Global. The company's main offerings are Custom Software Development. With 50 - 249 people on staff, Exist Global can take on projects of varying size. Typical hourly rates run around $25 - $49 / hr/hr, with an average project cost near $60,000. The team is based in Pasig, Philippines. Overall, Exist Global is one of the options worth shortlisting for a technology project.
Where We Specialize
Industry Expertise
Typical Project Size
Exist Global Reviews
Write a ReviewA technology investment that delivered returns ahead of the business case we approved
Radosław Kowalczyk / Head of Development - Wisła Software Sp zooJan 11, 2026
Project summary: Our engineering capacity was committed to maintaining existing systems and could not absorb a net-new build of this complexity. An external partner with the right skills was the only viable option.
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.
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
Pipeline availability for kickoff required a few weeks of lead time — in hindsight that selection pressure means you are working with a team that is in demand for the right reasons
Questions & Answers
A technology investment that delivered returns ahead of the business case we approved
Bram de Vries / Chief Technology Officer - Windmill Tech BVJan 09, 2026
Project summary: Warehouse management inefficiencies were adding cost and introducing errors at a rate that was becoming visible to clients. A modernised WMS was the agreed solution internally — we needed a partner to build it.
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
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