About PMG
PMG has been in business since 2010, delivering technology projects for clients. The company's main offerings are Web Development and Mobile App Development. Its team includes 50 - 249 specialists working across design, development, and delivery. Typical hourly rates run around $100 - $149/hr, with an average project cost near $60,000. This profile is a starting point — reach out to PMG directly to discuss project specifics.
Where We Specialize
Industry Expertise
Typical Project Size
PMG Reviews
Write a ReviewUser research that uncovered friction we had stopped noticing because it was always there
Rupert Ashford / Director of eCommerce - Hargrove Retail PLCFeb 03, 2026
Project summary: Several years of incremental development had left us with a platform that was technically functional but strategically limiting. A structured rebuild was the agreed path forward.
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.
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
Performance-first web development that Google Core Vitals confirmed was the right approach
Bilal Chaudhry / Co-Founder & CTO - Indus Software HouseJan 15, 2026
Project summary: Several years of incremental development had left us with a platform that was technically functional but strategically limiting. A structured rebuild was the agreed path forward.
What made the most difference in practice was the quality of the engineering judgment on this team. Not the ability to execute a specification — that is a baseline expectation. The ability to recognise when a specification was suboptimal, explain why, propose an alternative, and support the client in making a decision about it. That consultative dimension elevated the output beyond what the brief described and resulted in a product that is more fit for purpose than the one we had originally specified.
Deep domain knowledge that reduced the discovery overhead significantly, proactive risk identification before issues became incidents, delivery cadence that our stakeholders found reassuring
Their discovery process is more rigorous than we were accustomed to and required more preparation from our side than we had initially allocated — but the quality of what followed justified every hour of it
Questions & Answers
Roadmap that finally put our infrastructure investment in language the CFO could approve
Nathan Prescott / VP of Technology - Ironclad Insurance GroupJan 13, 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.
We had worked with three agencies before this engagement. The comparison is not flattering to the others. What distinguished this team was a systematic approach to understanding the problem before proposing a solution — something that sounds obvious and is practiced far less often than it should be. The delivery phase ran to schedule, the codebase is clean enough that our internal engineers made positive comments during handover review, and we have not logged a critical incident in five months of live operation. We intend to use them for our next phase of work.
Production system that has performed as specified since go-live without remediation work, documentation thorough enough to support internal maintenance, knowledge transfer that left our team genuinely capable
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