Top 10 Food Delivery App Development Companies 2026:#1 Frenchy Digital

"Every one of these agencies says they built a food delivery app. How do I know which ones actually did?"

That's a paraphrase of a restaurant owner on a call with me this month. He runs a few locations, pays a delivery marketplace a commission on every order, and wants his own app. He had a spreadsheet of agencies from three different "top food delivery app developers" lists, and most of the names on those lists had published the list themselves.

So I did the boring version. On September 30, 2026 I read the public pages of the food app developers that keep showing up in those lists and in search, and kept only the ones that name a real food or ordering client on their own site.

Here's the claim, with the date on it. Of the ten that made the cut, one has its food work credited to it by the client, on the client's own website. One publishes restaurant app prices. None says, in so many words, that you own the code when you pay the invoice.

To be clear about the conflict up front: I run Frenchy Digital, which builds mobile apps. It isn't in the scored table. It gets its own disclosed section near the end, scored on the same rubric (8 of 12, which would place it second), and I say plainly that we have no named food delivery client to show you.

If you're still working out what a restaurant app should even do, start with our guide to food and restaurant app development. This page assumes you've decided to build and want to know who with.

Most food delivery developer rankings fail for three reasons: the author is on the list, the logos are treated as proof, and the outcome numbers are the agency's own.

The first is almost universal in this category. Search for food delivery app developers and a large share of the results are rankings written by development companies, with themselves somewhere in the top three. I'm not above the temptation, which is why my company sits outside the table.

The second is subtler. Food is the category where big brand logos are easiest to borrow. A multinational chain runs different apps in different countries, often through a local franchisee, so "we built the KFC app" can be true for one market and meaningless for yours. A logo wall tells you nothing about which market, which years, and which part of the build.

The third is the numbers. Case study pages in this market are full of order lifts, conversion gains and satisfaction percentages. Every one of them is written by the agency about its own work.

The wrong model says: the agency with the biggest food brand on its site is the safest pick. It feels right, because a chain that serves millions of orders presumably chose carefully.

The real model is that a food app is a chain of integrations (menu, POS, payments, kitchen, courier, loyalty) and the agency you want is the one that can show you which links it built, what it charges to build them, and what you own afterward. A famous logo with no scope attached is worth less than a small named client with a clear page.

Therefore the question isn't "who has the biggest brand?" It's "who can show named work I can confirm, a price, a plan, and a clause that gives me the code?" You'll see in the scoreboard how rarely those four things sit on the same website.

A large part of the food delivery app market isn't custom development at all. It's white-label software, sold as "an UberEats clone" and rebranded with your name and logo.

I don't think that's a bad product. For a founder testing a delivery idea in one city, a pre-built stack can be the right call. But it's a different purchase from a custom build, and most lists mix the two without saying so.

Here's the clearest example I found. Elluminati's homepage describes prebuilt, customizable platforms that let you skip months of development, lists an UberEats clone starting at $2,999, names a food and grocery delivery product called EDelivery, and says customers get full source code ownership. It says the company was established in 2012.

That's more transparency on price and code than any of the ten ranked companies publish. So why isn't it ranked? Because the named clients on its homepage are a taxi app, a super app, a pet care marketplace and another taxi service. I couldn't find a named food delivery client on its own site, and the entry rule for this list is named food or ordering work.

One ranked company sits closer to this model than the others. Apptunix's food delivery page says a basic app can launch in 7 days. Nobody designs and codes a delivery app from scratch in a week, so read that as a pre-built base being configured. That's fine if you know it. Ask which parts are pre-built, who else runs the same code, and whether you get the source.

To be ranked, a company had to build software (not just design it), name a food delivery or restaurant ordering client on its own site, and show no sign of having been acquired or shut down.

I started from about twenty names that recur in food app developer lists and search results, then cut. Here's who didn't make it, and why.

• Bottle Rocket: A long-standing restaurant app developer, but WPP agreed to acquire it in November 2013. It's part of a holding company, not an independent developer. Out.
• Deloitte Digital: Its Chipotle case study describes a redesigned iOS and Android app launched in November 2017. It's a practice of a global professional services firm, not an independent developer. Out.
• Clay: Its Joe & The Juice case study lists strategy, visual identity, UI and UX design and ongoing support, with no development. Design only, so it belongs in a design ranking. Out.
• Moby: The Seattle firm's Pagliacci Pizza ordering app was a 2020 Webby Honoree, credited to Moby on the Webby site. But the work isn't shown on Moby's own site, which is the entry rule. Out, and flagged below as worth a call.
• Unnamed clients: SPEC India, Celadonsoft and DreamzTech publish food delivery case studies for a restaurant chain, a restaurant network and a Canadian aggregator, without naming the client. Unverifiable by design. Out.
• Elluminati: A white-label vendor with a published food delivery clone price, but no named food client on its own site. Out, as explained above.
• List authors: Companies that published their own food app developer ranking with themselves on it weren't scored, for the same reason my company isn't in the table.

The sources for the cuts are public. The Bottle Rocket deal is recorded in a November 8, 2013 deal report. The Chipotle work is on Deloitte Digital's own case study. Clay's scope is on its Joe & The Juice page. And the Pagliacci credit is on the Webby Awards site, which lists Moby, Inc. and the individual designers and developers.

For the ten ranked companies, searches found no acquisition, merger or shutdown news from 2025 to 2026. Absence from search results isn't proof of independence. If ownership matters to you (a new parent can change pricing, staff and who signs your contract), ask directly.

Six attributes, 0 to 2 points each, twelve maximum, all checked on September 30, 2026 from pages anyone can open.

• Named food or ordering work: 2 for two or more named food delivery or restaurant ordering clients on the company's own site; 1 for one; 0 for none (which also fails the entry test).
• Outside confirmation: 2 when the client or an awarding body names the company for that work on its own site; 1 for independent press naming it; 0 when nothing outside the company's site was found.
• Published pricing: 2 for price figures for this kind of app on the company's own site; 1 for a described pricing model without figures; 0 for nothing, or budget buckets on a contact form.
• Published process and timeline: 2 for documented phases plus a timeline; 1 for a named or described approach without both; 0 for none found.
• Code and IP terms: 2 for an explicit statement that the client owns the code; 1 for a stated handover of full source code; 0 for nothing, or NDA language only (an NDA protects secrecy, not ownership).
• Years operating: 2 for ten or more years stated on the company's own site; 1 for under ten; 0 for none found.

Ties break on named food work, then on the number of years the company states, then alphabetically.

What I excluded, and why.Order lifts, conversion rates, downloads, revenue and satisfaction percentages, because every one is the agency's own number. Headcount and "products delivered" counters, because 2,000 apps tells you nothing about who builds your checkout. Code quality, because I haven't read anyone's code and I'd be scoring a guess.

Review ratings.Not scored, not printed. The big directories block automated readers, so ratings reach me only through search snippets and the agencies' own badges. A number I can't see on its source page isn't a number I'll rank on.

How to re-check it.Open each company's food case studies, food or restaurant service page, pricing page and about page. Search the site for "price", "fixed", "weeks", "source code", "you own" and "founded". Then search the client's own news page for the agency's name. It takes about fifteen minutes a company. If anything has changed since September 30, the score should change with it.

RaftLabs leads with 9 of 12, three points clear of Blue Label Labs at 6. Everyone else sits between 3 and 5.

Do the arithmetic. The ten scores add to 46, so the average is 4.6 of 12, a little over a third. The leader discloses about 2x what the average company does, and 3x what the bottom three do.

Now read the columns, because that's where the finding is.

Years: all ten score 2. This is a mature market, and longevity separates nobody. Named work: everyone scores at least 1, by construction. Outside confirmation: nine of ten score zero. Pricing: nine of ten score zero. Code terms: nine of ten score zero, and the tenth scores only 1.

So the market is generous with case studies and quiet about the three things that decide a restaurant owner's risk: can I confirm this work, what will mine cost, and do I own it? Whoever you shortlist, expect to ask for all three in writing.

Every score traces to a cell below. Everything in this table is the company's own statement on its own site, except outside confirmation, which I searched for on client and award pages.

A few cells need a note. RaftLabs scores 1 on code terms, not 2, because "full source code and admin credentials handed over at launch" describes delivery of files. It's good, and it's more than anyone else says. But a handover isn't an assignment of ownership, and a lawyer will tell you the difference matters if the relationship ends badly.

Apptunix and Space-O Technologies both mention NDAs, and Apptunix says it signs them to protect your intellectual property. An NDA keeps your idea secret. It doesn't say who owns the code, so neither scores on that column.

Detroit Labs' homepage lists Domino's among its clients next to Jimmy John's. I only credited the work I could read a case study for, so it scores 1 on named food work. If Domino's work is documented somewhere on the site, the score would rise to 2 and the rank to fifth.

Each profile says who the company suits, what I could verify, and what I couldn't.None of this is a quality judgment. I haven't worked with any of them.

Top ranked

1

RaftLabs

the only restaurant app price list

Score: 9 of 12. Suits: independent restaurants, cafés and small groups that want to see a price band and a week-by-week plan before the first call.

Verifiable: its restaurant app page names Gula, a centralized food ordering platform it says was later acquired by Runchise, and Grubly, online ordering for cafés and quick-service restaurants. It publishes three bands: $25,000 to $45,000 for mobile ordering, payment and one POS; $60,000 to $100,000 adding loyalty, table management and kitchen display; and $100,000 to $150,000 for a multi-venue group. It lays out week 1 scoping and POS assessment, a design sprint in weeks 2 and 3, build in weeks 4 to 12 and launch by week 14, at a fixed price agreed before development. Its about page says it was founded in 2015 and is still run by its founders, from Ireland and India.

Not verifiable: the zero order errors and commission savings on its client stories are its own numbers. I found no client page naming RaftLabs. Code ownership is described as a handover, not an assignment.

Visit RaftLabs

2

Blue Label Labs

the client says so, in public

Score: 6 of 12. Suits: multi-location beverage and quick-service chains replacing an off-the-shelf ordering app with a custom one.

Verifiable: its Kung Fu Tea case study describes a custom iOS and Android ordering app with a gamified loyalty program on LevelUp's API and a custom CMS, replacing white-labeled software. And here's the part nobody else in this list has: Kung Fu Tea's own announcement from August 15, 2022 says its new app was created in conjunction with Blue Label Labs. Its homepage says it was founded more than 13 years ago and is recognized as a minority-owned business in New York State.

Not verifiable:the doubled weekly users and loyalty engagement figures are the agency's. No pricing or code terms. Its published SPRINT framework is aimed at AI projects rather than app builds, so it scores 1 on process. One named food client, so 1 on named work.

Visit Blue Label Labs

3

Apptunix

three named food apps and a 7-day claim

Score: 5 of 12. Suits: startups and regional operators in the Gulf and South Asia that want a delivery platform launched quickly and are comfortable starting from a pre-built base.

Verifiable: its food delivery page names three case studies: Expo City Eats in Dubai, Dinein in Bahrain, and a McDonald's deployment in India. It lists five steps from requirements to deployment and says basic apps can launch in 7 days. Its about page says it was founded in 2013 and has offices in the UAE, USA, UK and India.

Not verifiable:the revenue figures beside the case studies. The one beside McDonald's is the size of McDonald's, not of the app. I found no McDonald's page naming Apptunix, and the scope of that work isn't clear from the page. Ask which market and which part.

Visit Apptunix

4

Appinventiv

seven KFC apps in one program

Score: 5 of 12. Suits: franchise operators running several brands across several countries, who need many near-identical apps shipped on one program.

Verifiable: its KFC case study says it built seven KFC delivery apps for the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt, Qatar, Bahrain and Oman, as part of an Americana Group project covering 18 apps for 5 brands, with delivery, pickup, drive-thru, dine-in and carhop modes. A separate portfolio page describes Pizza Hut apps in four of those markets. The KFC page names a build, operate, optimize and transfer model. Its homepage says 10+ years.

Not verifiable:the aggregator share and conversion figures are its own. I found no Americana or KFC page naming Appinventiv. No pricing or code terms on the pages checked, although the "transfer" in its model is a good question to ask about.

Visit Appinventiv

5

Space-O Technologies

the Glovo claim

Score: 4 of 12. Suits: founders building a multi-sided delivery marketplace with customer, courier and merchant apps.

Verifiable: its Glovo project page says it was the end-to-end development partner behind Glovo and lists six systems: an operations dashboard, the customer app, a courier app, order tracking and dispatch, a merchant portal and payments. It also names Delishry, a food delivery app. Its about page says it was founded in 2010.

Not verifiable:the Glovo scope. It's a large claim about a company that went on to raise large rounds, and I found no Glovo page or release naming Space-O. It may well be true for an early version. Ask which years, which apps, and for a contact. The downloads and funding figures on the page are Glovo's, not Space-O's.

Visit Space-O Technologies

The bottom half isn't worse at building apps. It publishes less, and it includes the developer behind a national sandwich chain's first native apps.

6

MindInventory

KFC Indonesia, POS included

Score: 4 of 12. Suits: chains that need the ordering app, the in-store POS and the admin dashboard built as one system.

Verifiable: its KFC Indonesia case study describes Android and iOS apps, a web platform, a restaurant POS for dine-in, takeaway and delivery, menu sync to third-party marketplaces and a multi-store admin. Its food portfolio also names Porter and Cauli Box. Its about page says it was founded in 2011.

Not verifiable:the sales and processing speed gains. No pricing, process page or code terms found. Note that two different agencies in this list claim KFC work, in different countries. Both can be true. That's exactly why the market matters.

Visit MindInventory

7

Detroit Labs

Jimmy John's native apps

Score: 4 of 12. Suits: US national chains that want native iOS and Android apps and a long-running maintenance relationship.

Verifiable: its Jimmy John's case study describes strategy, design and native app development for the chain's first mobile apps, later extended with rewards, voice ordering, Apple Watch support and curbside pickup. Its homepage says 15 years and lists food service clients including Jimmy John's and Domino's.

Not verifiable:the download and rating figures are quoted by the agency; I didn't score them. No pricing, code terms or detailed process page. A multi-year native relationship with a national chain is a strong signal; it just isn't one the rubric can confirm from outside.

Visit Detroit Labs

8

SunTec India

a Chicago chicken institution

Score: 3 of 12. Suits: a single well-known restaurant that wants a customer, delivery and admin app built in Flutter at offshore rates.

Verifiable: its Harold's Chicken on Broadway case study describes iOS and Android apps built in Flutter and Firebase with admin, delivery and customer panels, live tracking and a loyalty system. Its homepage says it was founded in 1999.

Not verifiable: the delivery efficiency and direct order figures. No pricing, process or code terms. App development is one line among many services, including data entry and outsourcing.

Visit SunTec India

9

Softjourn

building for the ordering vendor

Score: 3 of 12. Suits: restaurant technology vendors that need engineering capacity on an existing ordering platform, rather than restaurants buying their first app.

Verifiable: its Tacit Innovations case study describes nine new APIs for the Maegan ordering system, POS payment and loyalty integrations, and Android development, with a quote attributed to Tacit's CTO. Its about page says it was founded in 2001.

Not verifiable:no pricing, process or code terms on the pages checked. One named food client, and it's a vendor, not a restaurant.

Visit Softjourn

10

Miquido

a lunch subscription in 3 months

Score: 3 of 12. Suits: European food startups that want design, web and React Native mobile from one team on a short timeline.

Verifiable: its Eat&Joy case study describes design, web and mobile development for a subscription lunch delivery service in Milan, built with React Native, React and Node.js and delivered in 3 months. Its homepage says it was established more than 15 years ago, in Krakow.

Not verifiable: no pricing, process page or code terms on the pages checked. One named food client.

Visit Miquido

One honorable mention that the rules kept out. Moby's Pagliacci Pizza app is the only food app in this whole exercise with an award I could confirm at the source: a 2020 Webby Honoree, with Moby's CTO and a mobile developer named on the Webby listing. If you're a regional pizza chain in the Pacific Northwest, call them, and ask why it isn't on their site.

The rank matters less than the fit. A 4 that has built your kind of app beats a 9 that hasn't.

Decide first which of three businesses you are, because they buy different things. A restaurant that wants its own ordering app to cut marketplace commissions. A chain that needs ordering, loyalty and POS working across many locations. Or a founder building a marketplace with its own couriers, which is really three apps and a dispatch system.

Two rows deserve a longer word.

The single restaurant. If you run one to three locations, the honest answer may be that you don't need a custom app yet. Many POS systems ship an ordering product, and a custom build only pays when you have enough repeat customers for loyalty and reorder to matter. Our restaurant delivery app guide for Los Angeles operators works through that decision for an independent owner.

The marketplace founder.A three-sided delivery app is the most expensive thing in this article. Customer app, courier app, restaurant tablet, admin, dispatch, payouts. It's also where white-label vendors are strongest, because the plumbing is similar everywhere. If you're testing demand in one city, a clone may be the cheaper experiment. If you're raising money on the product, investors will ask what you own, and "a licence to someone else's codebase" is a weak answer.

This is a scenario, not a client.

Consider an owner with four pizza locations who wants a branded ordering app with loyalty, tied to the POS he already uses. He has set aside $60,000. His one condition: he owns the code and the app store listings, because he watched a friend lose both when an agency relationship ended.

Step one is the money, and here only one ranked company lets him do arithmetic before a call. RaftLabs' basic module is $25,000 to $45,000; the tier with loyalty starts at $60,000. So his budget sits at exactly 1.0x the floor of the loyalty tier, and 1.33x the ceiling of the basic tier. In plain terms: loyalty is affordable only if nothing else grows. That's worth knowing on day one.

Step two is ownership. None of the ten says in plain words that the client owns the code. So he emails his shortlist one line: "Please confirm in writing that all source code, designs and the App Store and Google Play accounts are assigned to us on payment, and list any components you license rather than assign." How fast and how cleanly each answers is the best free signal he'll get.

Step three is proof. He asks each finalist for one restaurant client he can call. Blue Label Labs already has one in public (Kung Fu Tea). Detroit Labs has a national chain on a multi-year relationship. For the others, the reference call is the confirmation this ranking couldn't find.

Step four is the timeline. RaftLabs publishes 10 to 14 weeks to a first version; Miquido's case study says 3 months for Eat&Joy. Those line up. Anyone quoting a custom build in a few weeks is either reusing a base or leaving something out, and he should ask which.

Notice what the rank did in all of this: not much. The top scorer publishes the most, which saved him a call. But any of the ten could say yes to his ownership clause tomorrow. The total is a summary; the columns are the tool.

If he'd rather hire a developer directly than an agency, our sibling piece on the cost to hire a mobile app developer in 2026 runs the same kind of arithmetic for that route.

Food app pages are dense with numbers, and almost none of them should travel as fact.

The first is the market size figure. Nearly every food app developer page opens with a projection of the global food delivery market in some future year, in the hundreds of billions. The figures disagree with each other, usually trace to a paid market research report nobody quoting it has read, and tell a four-location restaurant nothing. I don't print one.

The second is the direct ordering preference statistic. One food case study I read, SPEC India's, states that 70% of consumers now prefer ordering directly from restaurants rather than marketplaces, with no source attached. I couldn't trace it to a survey, a sample or a date. It may come from a vendor study; I don't know, and neither does the page. Not repeated as fact.

The third is borrowed scale. Case study pages print the client's downloads, funding, store count or corporate revenue beside the agency's name. Those are the client's numbers. They say nothing about what the agency built, and in one case the revenue printed is the entire chain's.

The fourth is outcome lifts: conversion up by a fifth, direct orders up by two fifths, aggregator dependence cut in half. Each is published by the agency about its own work, with no baseline and nobody outside checking. Not scored.

And the fifth is commission rates. You'll see a single percentage quoted as "what the marketplaces charge". Marketplace commission depends on the plan, the market and the contract, and it changes. Get your own number from your own statement before you build a business case on it.

Once you have two or three proposals, these are the lines I'd look for first.

• No clause assigning code to you: Nine of ten ranked companies publish nothing on ownership. Get a written assignment of source code, designs, databases and both app store accounts, with licensed components listed.
• App store accounts in the agency's name: If your app is published under the agency's developer account, moving it later is painful. The listing should be yours from day one.
• POS integration 'to be confirmed': The POS is where restaurant apps break. A proposal that doesn't name your POS and the integration method is quoting for a demo.
• A famous logo with no market or scope: Ask which country, which years, and which part of the build. Multinational chains run different apps in different markets.
• A custom build in a week: That's a pre-built base. It may be fine; the proposal should say so, and say what you keep.
• No plan for the kitchen: Orders have to land somewhere staff actually look. A proposal with no tablet, printer or kitchen display plan hasn't met a Friday night.
• Monthly platform fee with no exit: If there's an ongoing licence, ask what happens to the app, the data and the customers if you stop paying.
• Outcome numbers on slide one: Another chain's conversion lift is that chain's context. Ask for a restaurant reference instead.

A good food app proposal reads like a build plan: phases, the integrations named, who is on it, and what you own. If you want the cross-platform tradeoffs behind the build itself, our React Native development service page explains how we approach one codebase for iOS and Android.

A disclosure ranking has three failure modes, and you should know them before you rely on it.

First, it rewards companies that write things down. Detroit Labs has a multi-year native relationship with a national sandwich chain and sits seventh, because it doesn't publish prices or code terms. That's why I call this a shortlist tool, not a verdict. The cost of this failure is small: you might skip a strong developer. The fix is cheap: email the ones whose work you like and ask.

Second, case study claims can be stale, partial or inflated, and the rubric credits them for being named, not for being true. That's what the outside confirmation column is for, and nine of ten score zero on it. The cost of this one is bigger, because a buyer might skip the reference call. The fix is to make the reference call a condition of signing.

Third, the rubric can't see engineering. Whether the checkout survives a lunch rush, whether the POS sync drops orders, whether the courier app drains a battery: those are the things that decide whether a food app works, and I can't score them from anyone's website. A technical reference or a paid discovery phase can.

Why publish it anyway? Because the alternative is a list ranked on logo walls and outcome numbers nobody checked. The downside of a disclosure ranking is bounded: at worst it sends you three extra emails. The downside of a ranking built on agency claims isn't.

Here's what I chased and couldn't establish.

• Build quality: No neutral benchmark of app developers exists, and I commissioned no test builds or code reviews.
• Big-brand scope: The Glovo, McDonald's India and KFC claims are the agencies' own statements. I found no client page confirming any of them. They may all be accurate for some market and some period.
• Pages I didn't open: I checked food case studies, food service pages, pricing and about pages. A contract page or terms of service might state code ownership.
• Review ratings: Directories block automated reads. None is printed or scored.
• Acquisition status: Searches found no 2025 to 2026 acquisitions for the ten, which isn't proof there were none.
• Contract terms: IP assignment usually lives in agreements nobody publishes. Absence on a website isn't absence in a contract.
• White-label share: I can't tell from outside how much of any ranked company's food work started from pre-built code. Ask each one.

None of this makes the list less useful. It makes it a shortlist you can audit.

Frenchy Digital is my company. That's a conflict of interest, and it's why this pick sits outside the scored table and is labeled as mine.

So let me score it the same way first, starting with the column that hurts.

Named food or ordering work: 0. I went through every case study on our site. None is a food delivery or restaurant ordering app. The closest is Fighter Cut, our own weight-cut and nutrition app for combat athletes, which logs food and macros over 236 seed foods and renders FDA-style Nutrition Facts panels. That's food data, not food ordering, and I won't pretend otherwise. Under the entry rule, we wouldn't even qualify for the neutral list.

Outside confirmation: 0, for the same reason. Pricing: 2, because our rate and engagement bands are published. Process: 2, because we publish engagement bands with timelines and send a fixed-price phased proposal within 5 business days. Code and IP terms: 2, because full source code and IP ownership transfer to the client, stated as ownership, not handover. Years: 2, operating since 2016, founded in France, with our US company since 2019.

That's 8 of 12. It would place us second of eleven, one point behind RaftLabs and two ahead of Blue Label Labs. I'd rather show you that arithmetic than hide it.

So why is it still my pick?Because the rubric scores what companies publish, and for a restaurant owner the column that matters most after the build is the one we score best on: you own it. Code, designs, IP, the lot, in the contract. We're a senior-led, Black-owned app and AI agency in Los Angeles, and the people on the call are the people writing the code.

Most of our mobile work is React Native with Expo, one codebase for iOS and Android, which is also how most ordering apps get built now. Fighter Cut and its coach companion ran on Capacitor instead, because the product called for it. Both are on TestFlight with public release gated to October 2026, and we publish counts from the code rather than downloads, because there aren't public ones yet.

On price: a single-workflow build runs $28k to $70k over 4 to 9 weeks, a multi-workflow platform with system integration $70k to $180k over 9 to 16 weeks, and an enterprise, multi-site or regulated build $180k to $420k and up over 14 to 24 weeks. Senior time is $150 to $225 an hour, retainers $2,500 to $9,500 a month, with a 30-day post-launch warranty.

Run the worked scenario through it. The four-location owner's $60,000 is about 0.86x of $70k, which is both the ceiling of our single-workflow band and the floor of our multi-workflow band. An ordering app with loyalty and one POS integration is closer to the second, so his budget would be tight with us too. That's the kind of thing the proposal should tell him in week one, not month three.

You can get from this page to a defensible shortlist in about a week.Here's the order I'd do it in.

1. 1.Decide which of the three businesses you are (own-ordering restaurant, multi-location chain, or delivery marketplace) and use the restaurant-type table to cut the list to two or three companies.
2. 2.Email each of them the same four requests: the code and IP assignment clause from their standard agreement, whose developer account the app will be published under, which parts of their food work started from pre-built code, and one restaurant client you can call. Note who answers all four, and how fast.
3. 3.On the call, name your POS and ask how they've integrated it before, what happens to orders when it's offline, and who will build your app by name. Screenshot every page you relied on, dated, and keep it with the proposal.

Whoever answers those emails with clauses and names rather than adjectives is probably your developer. Time to send the emails.