About Live Typing
Since 2009, Live Typing has operated as a technology services provider. Live Typing focuses on Custom Software Development. The company operates with a team of 10 - 49 professionals. Clients can expect pricing around $50 - $99/hr, with projects averaging about $45,000. This profile is a starting point — reach out to Live Typing directly to discuss project specifics.
Where We Specialize
Industry Expertise
Typical Project Size
Live Typing Reviews
Write a ReviewDesign work that measurably improved every conversion metric on our platform
Elliot Thorne / Managing Director, Tech - Redwood Capital AdvisorsJan 25, 2026
Project summary: A merger had left us with two incompatible student information systems. We needed a consolidation path that preserved historical data, maintained service continuity, and met accreditation requirements.
Our stakeholder group included board members, clinical leads, compliance officers, and end users — each with different technical literacy and different success criteria. This team navigated that stakeholder landscape as well as any vendor I have seen. They adjusted their communication register depending on the audience without losing the substance. They managed expectations honestly throughout. And they delivered a system that each group can point to as meeting their requirements. That breadth is genuinely uncommon.
Clear and consistent communication adapted appropriately for both technical and non-technical stakeholders, shared tooling that gave our team real-time visibility, reliable sprint delivery throughout
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
Architecture review that saved us from a vendor decision we would have regretted for years
Victoria Haines / Chief Product Officer - Solaris Media GroupJan 06, 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.
I came into this engagement as a sceptic. We had been through a failed implementation with a previous vendor and I had high standards for what evidence of competence looked like before I would trust a partner with our core systems. This team earned that trust progressively — through the quality of the discovery documentation, the rigour of the technical proposals, the consistency of the sprint deliveries, and ultimately the stability of the production system. I no longer lead with scepticism when recommending them.
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
Questions & Answers
Performance marketing that produced positive ROAS in the first full campaign cycle
Omar Al-Farsi / Chief Technology Officer - Falcon Digital VenturesJan 05, 2026
Project summary: Unplanned downtime had become our single largest cost driver and our data showed that predictive maintenance could address the majority of it — if we had the right infrastructure to act on it.
Our stakeholder group included board members, clinical leads, compliance officers, and end users — each with different technical literacy and different success criteria. This team navigated that stakeholder landscape as well as any vendor I have seen. They adjusted their communication register depending on the audience without losing the substance. They managed expectations honestly throughout. And they delivered a system that each group can point to as meeting their requirements. That breadth is genuinely uncommon.
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
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