Legacy Software Modernization that starts with the one module blocking you and ends AI-ready.

Modernized software performs better and scales with the business instead of capping it. It closes the security vulnerabilities that accumulate in unsupported dependencies and weak access control, which is what audits keep finding. It reduces the cost of every future change, because the code is maintainable and the interfaces are documented. And it leaves you with the clean data and documented APIs that AI initiatives depend on.

It depends on how much of the system has to change, so we scope before we quote rather than publishing a headline number that would be wrong for most systems. Cost is driven by how many modules have to move, how tangled the data is, how many integrations hang off the system, and whether any of it has tests. The audit stage prices and phases the work, so you can start with the one module that is actually blocking you. Where modernization runs as an ongoing program, that is team extension, billed monthly per team member.

There is no single answer, because modernization is a sequence of module cut-overs rather than one release date. In our delivery experience the first module reaches production long before the whole system is done, and a full platform rebuild runs from several months to over a year. One rewrite we still work on started in 2017 and has never had a single release date.

Yes, and on a modernization that is usually the harder half. The old system sits in the middle of an ERP, a CRM, payment providers, a warehouse or property-management system, and a pile of scheduled jobs nobody has looked at in years. We map those dependencies during the audit, and a module hanging off an interface the business cannot afford to lose moves later in the order, not earlier. On one re-platforming off WordPress that meant Shopify storefronts and a Microsoft Dynamics ERP joined by custom middleware, with the ERP as the source of truth for products, logistics partners and stock.

Module by module. We audit the system first, break it into modules, and rebuild them one at a time, so the rest of the platform goes on serving while a single module moves. One platform came off WebForms onto .NET Core and a Vue JS module that way, with its design and user experience updated as it went. The honest limit is that a cut-over is still a change, which is why the audit names which modules carry that risk and what has to be true before each one moves. A big-bang rewrite, where nothing ships until everything ships, is the alternative, and it is almost always the wrong answer.

Sometimes, and not always. AI integration stands on data quality, API access, and infrastructure a model can safely touch. If those are buried in a legacy monolith, the initiative stalls on its way to production, so modernizing the relevant modules first is often the cheapest route to working AI. But plenty of platforms can have AI layered on through APIs without being replaced, and telling the two cases apart is what our AI readiness assessment is for.

When the platform starts blocking the business. An e-commerce portal on outdated technology, with rising complaints and falling conversion. An internal platform whose open security findings and slow performance fail audits. A company heading toward due diligence, where technical debt turns straight into a discount. If none of that is happening to you, keeping the system maintained is the better spend. There is one case where we are the wrong call, and we say it on the first call. If your system is a heavily customized instance of a packaged product, and the real work is configuration inside that vendor's ecosystem, a specialist partner for that product will do it faster and cheaper than we will.

Category claims are cheap and everyone bidding makes them, this page included. A comparison only starts working below the category. Four questions do that work, and each one is fair to put to us. Ask to see a redacted modernization roadmap from a system somebody else owns: module order, the interface between old and new, named risks. If it cannot say which module moves first and why, it is a proposal rather than a plan. Ask for the review URL instead of the star rating, because a rating is one number a vendor chose and a review is the whole interview; every client quoted on this page opens theirs. Ask which certifications they actually hold and which they do not: ours are ISO 27001:2022 and ISO 9001:2015, audited by Quay Audit UK, and SOC 2 is not among them. And ask which answer they would talk you out of, because two of the alternatives named on this page are services we sell ourselves.