React development

You can bring our React engineers onto your team, and several clients start there. What we will not do is supply people and leave the outcome unowned: architecture decisions get reviewed outside the delivery team, and the work goes through our own QA and test automation practice. Team extension is managed teams; handing over a product outcome is web development.

Both. Our React.js development services cover building and owning the interface, which is most of the work. React consulting is the fixed-scope shape: a code assessment, a state-model review, or an independent verdict before a rewrite is approved. That is our quality audit practice pointed at a front end, and it often ends by recommending less work rather than more.

Next.js when the product has public surface where search visibility or first paint decide the outcome, which covers most content-heavy products. Plain React when the application sits behind a login and server rendering buys nothing but operational complexity. The point is to decide it deliberately rather than inherit it from whichever starter template somebody copied first.

Yes, and it is how we prefer to do it. Old and new interfaces sit behind one routing layer, and we migrate a route at a time, each surface live before the next starts. Slower on paper than a clean rewrite, and far more likely to finish. A rewrite that needs a feature freeze is a rewrite that gets cancelled halfway.

Both, though they are separate services. Our product design team covers UI, UX and design systems, so the component library and the design tokens end up one artifact rather than two that drift apart. Where you already have designers, we work to their system and push back when a component contract is ambiguous, because that ambiguity becomes debt in our layer.

It is part of the component contract, not a later audit. Keyboard interaction, focus management and semantics get decided when a component is designed, because retrofitting them into a shipped library costs several times more. If you have a formal conformance target, tell us early: it changes component-level decisions, not just the testing at the end.

A scoping call, a technical conversation rather than a sales one, usually with the engineer who would do the work. For an existing front end we ask for repository access first, because half an hour in the code beats an hour of description. You get back a written read on where the data lives, what we would change first, and what we would leave alone. Most engagements start within two to four weeks.

Three shapes, and which fits depends on how settled the scope is. Time and materials is billed hourly and quoted per project, which suits work still moving. Fixed price is outcome based, and we only offer it once the first read is done, because a fixed number on a codebase nobody has opened is a guess with a contract around it. Team extension is billed monthly per engineer.