Top 10 Hybrid App Development Companies 2026:#1 Frenchy Digital

The firm I had pencilled in as number three on this list stopped being an independent company four weeks before I checked it.

Margelo, the Vienna studio behind VisionCamera and react-native-mmkv, had everything I was scoring: named apps, a listing in Expo's own consultants directory and two of the most used camera and storage libraries in React Native. Then a search for its name plus "acquired" turned up a Callstack announcement dated September 1, 2026: Margelo is joining Callstack, in a deal valuing it at more than 20 million euros.

That's not a scandal. It's a normal month in a small market. But it tells you how most rankings of hybrid app development companies get built: copied from last year's ranking, with nobody going back to check who still exists as a separate company.

So here is my claim, with the date on it. On September 30, 2026 I scored ten React Native and Flutter firms on six things a buyer can check from a public page in about fifteen minutes per firm. App&Flow and Infinite Red tied at the top with 9 of 12. The average was 7.7.

To be clear about the conflict up front: I run Frenchy Digital, which builds cross-platform apps. It is not in the scored table. It gets its own disclosed section near the end, where I score it on the same rubric (7 of 12, which would put it ninth of eleven), explain why it's still my pick for one kind of buyer, and say who should pick someone else.

If you haven't chosen a framework yet, start one step earlier with our ranking of hybrid app frameworks. This article is the named-company version: who builds with those frameworks, what they publish, and what they don't.

Most rankings of hybrid app companies fail for three reasons: the author is a contestant, "hybrid" is used as a sticker rather than a practice, and the scores rest on numbers only the agency can check.

The first is familiar. Agencies publish "top cross-platform developers" lists and put themselves near the top. I'm not above the temptation, which is why my own company sits outside the table.

The second is specific to this category. Almost every app agency now lists React Native and Flutter on its services page, because buyers search for them. A services page is a menu. It doesn't tell you whether the firm has shipped a cross-platform app someone can download, or whether its people could fix a broken native module at two in the morning before a launch.

The third is the one that matters most. Hybrid agency homepages are full of counters: apps delivered, downloads across client apps, npm installs, developers on staff. I saw a figure in the hundreds of millions of downloads on one site today. None of it is audited, and there is no public registry of who built which app.

The wrong model is that a ranking measures who writes the best React Native or Flutter code. The real model is that a public ranking can only measure what firms disclose and what a third party confirms. Code quality you judge yourself, from their apps and their open source.

And here's the good news for this category in particular. Hybrid development is unusually public. The frameworks are open source, the libraries every app depends on are open source, and the framework vendors run their own directories of firms they'll recommend. That gives a buyer more to check than in almost any other kind of agency hire. Most lists just don't use it.

Before scoring anyone, each candidate had to pass one test: named React Native, Flutter or Capacitor work on its own website, plus no acquisition, merger or shutdown from 2024 to 2026.

I built the candidate pool from the two lists the framework vendors publish themselves: the Expo consultants directory, which lists fourteen React Native firms, and the Flutter consultants directory on flutter.dev, which lists more than a hundred. I also looked for a React Native partner list in the framework repository, but its ECOSYSTEM.md file now just points to the React Foundation, so I didn't use it.

I excluded framework vendors and tool companies, because they aren't agencies you hire to build your app. That removed Expo itself and Ionic, whose Capacitor runtime is now maintained by OutSystems. Then I cut the rest. Here's who didn't make it.

• Margelo: Strong React Native firm, listed by Expo. Callstack announced on September 1, 2026 that Margelo is joining it. Out on the acquisition test.
• STRV, Nearform, Infinum and In The Pocket: Well-known studios, but the pages I fetched did not tie named apps to React Native or Flutter. Nearform now leads with AI engineering. Out on the named-work test, not on quality.
• gskinner: Well known in the Flutter community, but its own site showed no case studies to my tools. Close call; out.
• G2i: Listed by Expo, but its offer reads as supplying engineers to your team rather than delivering an app as a firm. Out of scope.

One firm in the final ten needs a note on ownership. Callstack is the buyer in the Margelo deal, not the bought. The test excludes firms that were acquired, so Callstack stays in, but expect its team and offer to change over the next year as the two firms combine.

For the other nine, searches found no acquisition, merger or shutdown from 2024 to 2026. Software Mansion is listed on the Warsaw NewConnect market, so its news flow is public; what I found in September 2026 was a large service contract, not a sale. Absence from search results isn't proof. Ask.

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

• Named cross-platform apps: 2 for three or more named apps on the company's own site where React Native, Flutter or Capacitor is stated; 1 for named mobile work where the framework is not stated per app, or fewer than three named apps; 0 for none.
• Framework vendor directory: 2 for a listing in the Expo consultants directory or the flutter.dev consultants directory that I opened today; 1 for a framework partnership claimed only on the agency's own site; 0 for none.
• Open source framework work: 2 for a React Native or Flutter library with more than 1,000 GitHub stars in the company's own GitHub organization; 1 for public framework repositories under that; 0 for none.
• Published pricing: 2 for dollar figures on the company's own site; 1 for a published billing structure without figures (weekly billing, a defined monthly team); 0 for neither.
• Public IP terms: 2 for an explicit source code and IP ownership statement; 1 for ownership language short of that; 0 for nothing on the pages checked.
• Years operating: 2 for a founding year or years in business stated on the company's own site; 1 for a date from a third party only; 0 for none found.

Ties break on named apps, then years operating, then alphabetically. That's the whole rubric.

I'll be upfront about one weakness. Because I sourced candidates from the two vendor directories, every ranked firm scores 2 on the directory attribute. It's doing the work of an entry gate, not separating the ten. I kept it in the table because it's the attribute you'll most want to confirm on a firm that isn't on this list, and because it's where my own company scores zero.

What I excluded, and why.Apps delivered, downloads, npm installs, users reached and funds raised by clients, because every one is the agency's own claim. Team size, because it doesn't tell you who works on your app. Awards, because most are paid or self-nominated. Clutch ratings, rates and minimum project sizes, because Clutch blocks automated reading and the figures that reach me through search snippets can't be checked at the source.

How to re-check it.Open each firm's case studies and look for the framework named next to a client. Search the Expo and Flutter directories for the firm's name. Open its GitHub organization and sort repositories by stars. Search its site for "pricing", "per week", "source code" and "own". It takes about fifteen minutes per firm. If something changes after September 30, the score should change too.

App&Flow and Infinite Red lead with 9 of 12. Five firms tie on 8, so most of this table is settled by the alphabet, not by gaps.

Do the arithmetic. The ten totals add to 77, so the average is 7.7 of 12, about 64%. The two leaders sit 1.3 points above the average and 3 points above the bottom pair, which is 1.5x what the bottom pair disclose. That's a tight field.

Now read the columns instead of the rows, because that's where the finding is. IP terms: ten of ten score zero. Pricing: eight of ten score zero, and the two that don't only earn a 1 for describing how they bill. Named apps, directories and open source: almost everyone scores 2.

So the hybrid market is extraordinarily open about its code and its clients, and completely quiet about what an app costs and who owns it afterwards. It's a stronger version of the pattern I found when ranking general app developers. You can read a firm's gesture-handling code line by line before you've ever spoken to it, and still have no idea whether it charges $8,000 or $40,000 a week.

Every score above traces to a cell below. Star counts are rounded from GitHub on September 30, 2026; everything else is the company's own statement unless I say otherwise.

Three cells deserve a note. Theodo's mobile studio used to publish as BAM on its own site. Those pages now redirect into Theodo's group website, whose client stories name mobile apps but not the framework each used. The strongest React Native statement I found (building with it since 2015) is on Expo's listing, not Theodo's own pages, so named apps and years both score 1.

Callstack's biggest repository by stars is a CSS library, not a mobile one. I scored it on React Native Paper instead, which is its own React Native component library. Where a firm's top repository wasn't a framework library, I looked for the largest one that was.

And GeekyAnts' largest library, NativeBase, sits in its main GitHub organization, while its newer gluestack UI project lives in a separate organization. I counted only the first, which is enough for a 2 on its own.

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

Top ranked

1

App&Flow

a Montreal Expo shop that describes how it bills

Score: 9 of 12. Suits: startups and product teams that want a small senior React Native team working on Expo.

Verifiable: its homepagesays it was founded in 2015 in Montreal, says it is recommended by Expo, and names apps for Dialogue, Fin, LAP Coffee, Tlon Messenger and Rainbow. It describes a product development offer of two engineers covering 135 hours a month, plus a separate consulting offer for audits, upgrades and native modules. It's listed in the Expo consultants directory, and its GitHub organization maintains react-native-safe-area-context, which has about 2,760 stars and sits inside a very large number of React Native apps.

Not verifiable:no dollar figure for that monthly model, so pricing scores 1. No IP terms on the pages checked. The user and acquisition figures it lists next to client names are the clients' outcomes as the agency tells them, and I don't repeat them.

Visit App&Flow

2

Infinite Red

US React Native consultants since 2015

Score: 9 of 12. Suits: US companies that want experienced React Native consultants on an existing app or a new build.

Verifiable: its homepage carries React Native case studies for Mercari, Zoom and GasBuddy. Its hiring pagesays it opened in October 2015, that it bills by the week, and that it doesn't want clients held by an onerous contract. It maintains Ignite, a React Native starter with about 19,900 GitHub stars, and it's listed by Expo.

Not verifiable: no weekly rate, so pricing scores 1. No IP terms. The team experience average on its site is its own figure.

Visit Infinite Red

3

Callstack

enterprise React Native, now with Margelo

Score: 8 of 12. Suits: large companies scaling or rescuing a React Native codebase.

Verifiable: its homepage names Expensify, Questrade, Dream11, AutoZone and HelloFresh and says it has contributed to React Native since 2016. Its Margelo announcement says it has spent a decade helping large organizations adopt React Native. It maintains React Native Paper (about 14,500 stars) and is listed by Expo.

Not verifiable: no pricing and no IP terms. The Margelo deal was announced a month ago, so who staffs which project is likely to shift. Ask.

Visit Callstack

4

GeekyAnts

React Native and Flutter in both directories

Score: 8 of 12. Suits:buyers who haven't settled on a framework and want one vendor that works in both.

Verifiable: its case studies name React Native work for JFIT, Lush (WaxBuddy) and Liviit, and Flutter work for Chant, Rythmix and Marigold Health. It appears in both the Expo and Flutter directories, maintains NativeBase (about 20,400 stars), and its homepage claims more than 20 years of engineering products.

Not verifiable:no pricing on its site; the hourly rates circulating for it come from Clutch snippets I couldn't check. The contact form offers an NDA, which protects confidentiality but isn't an IP assignment.

Visit GeekyAnts

5

LeanCode

Flutter for banks, with its own test framework

Score: 8 of 12. Suits: banks, insurers and large European brands building in Flutter.

Verifiable: its homepage describes the CA24 Mobile banking app for Credit Agricole Bank Polska, built over 12 months with 30 Flutter developers, plus Enterprise Go and a Flutter desktop kiosk for Wedel. Its about pagesays it was founded in 2016 in Warsaw and created Patrol, a Flutter UI testing framework (about 1,430 stars). It's in the Flutter directory.

Not verifiable: no pricing and no IP terms. The product and headcount counters are its own.

Visit LeanCode

The next five aren't worse at building. Most of them tie on points and lose on the alphabet, or publish less.

6

Software Mansion

the library authors

Score: 8 of 12. Suits: teams whose app lives or dies on animation, gestures or media performance.

Verifiable: its homepage names React Native work for Partiful, dscout and Moxie, and its published site text says it has built production mobile and web apps since 2012. Its GitHub organization holds React Native Reanimated (about 11,000 stars), react-native-svg and Gesture Handler. Its site calls it the top contributing group in the Expo ecosystem.

Not verifiable: no pricing and no IP terms. If open source were weighted more heavily, Software Mansion would top this list; under an equal-weight rubric, it ties on 8 and places sixth alphabetically.

Visit Software Mansion

7

Very Good Ventures

Flutter for consumer brands

Score: 8 of 12. Suits: mid-market and enterprise consumer brands committing to Flutter.

Verifiable: its homepage names Flutter work for the official Hamilton app, Universal Destinations, JSX and Blade. Its about pagesays the founding team launched the first commercial Flutter app in 2018. Its open source organization maintains Very Good CLI (about 2,420 stars), and it's first in the Flutter directory as I saw it.

Not verifiable:no pricing and no IP terms. The directory's order isn't explained on the page, so I read nothing into being listed first.

Visit Very Good Ventures

8

Echobind

a US-only React Native team

Score: 7 of 12. Suits: healthcare, media and consumer companies that need the whole team in the United States.

Verifiable: its React Native pagesays it has used React Native since 2015, is 100% US-based with offices in Boston and Encinitas, and names work for Pear Therapeutics, Axios and Univision's PrendeTV. It's listed by Expo.

Not verifiable: its largest public repository has about 590 stars, so open source scores 1. No pricing, no IP terms. The project and client counts on the page are its own.

Visit Echobind

9

Somnio Software

Flutter only, from Montevideo

Score: 6 of 12. Suits: buyers who want a nearshore Flutter specialist in a US-friendly time zone.

Verifiable: its success cases name Flutter work for CAA Club Group, Siigo, Tracer Golf and ProWallet, among many others. It's in the Flutter directory. Its company page tells the founding story of three classmates betting on Flutter.

Not verifiable: no founding year on its own pages (third parties give 2019 and 2016), public repositories are small, and its site says rates vary with requirements. No IP terms.

Visit Somnio Software

10

Theodo

a React Native pioneer folded into its group

Score: 6 of 12. Suits: European enterprises that want mobile, web and platform work from one large consultancy.

Verifiable:Expo's listing says Theodo has specialized in React Native since 2015, and the Flutter directory lists Theodo Apps. Its mobile team's GitHub organization (bamlab) maintains Flashlight, a mobile performance tool with about 1,600 stars. Its client stories name a mobile app for Lapse.

Not verifiable:the current client stories don't say which framework each app used, so named apps scores 1, and the 2015 date appears on Expo's page rather than Theodo's own. No pricing, no IP terms.

Visit Theodo

Pick the framework your future maintainers can hire for, then pick the agency. Doing it the other way round is how teams end up locked to one vendor.

Six of the ten ranked firms are React Native first, three are Flutter first, and GeekyAnts and Theodo work in both. None of the ten leads with Capacitor. That split matters more than the rank.

React Nativerenders real native components from JavaScript or TypeScript. The practical argument for it is hiring: a React web developer can read a React Native codebase on day one, and you can share logic with a React website. The cost is dependency on community libraries for things like gestures and animation, which is exactly why Software Mansion's and Callstack's open source matters.

Flutter draws its own interface using Dart. The argument for it is consistency: the app looks identical on every device, and one team controls every pixel. The cost is a smaller hiring pool, because Dart is used for little else.

Capacitor is the least discussed and, for some buyers, the most sensible. Its own documentation calls it a cross-platform native runtime for building iOS and Android apps with modern web tooling. If you already have a React or Vue web app, Capacitor can put it in the stores with camera, storage and push access. The downside, stated plainly: animation-heavy interfaces feel less native than React Native or Flutter, and you inherit the web app's performance.

That last option is where we've spent a lot of our own time recently. We built Fighter Cut, a weight-cut app for combat athletes, as React 19 and Vite wrapped in Capacitor 8 for iOS, with local-first storage so fighters can log with no signal in a gym basement. The same stack runs The Corner, its companion app for coaches, on a shared Supabase backend. Both case studies describe apps in App Store Connect and TestFlight, not download counts, and I won't add numbers they don't contain.

Why mention our own work in the framework section and not just in the pick? Because it's the honest answer to "who does Capacitor?" among the firms I looked at: nobody on the ranked list leads with it. If Capacitor is your likely answer, you'll be interviewing smaller studios, and you should ask each for a named Capacitor app you can install.

The rank matters less than the fit. A 6 that matches your constraint beats a 9 that doesn't.

Decide your one non-negotiable first (a framework, a budget ceiling, a time zone, a US-only team, full IP transfer) and see who survives it. Then compare the survivors on everything else.

Two rows deserve a longer word.

The enterprise with a struggling React Native app. If your app is already live and janky, the firms that maintain the libraries it depends on are the natural first call. Callstack and Software Mansion both fit. But be realistic about staffing: the people whose names are on the libraries are the scarcest people in the market, and a proposal should name who you actually get.

The bank or insurer choosing Flutter.LeanCode's published CA24 Mobile case is the most specific regulated-industry Flutter story I found: a named bank, a named app, a stated team size and duration. That's the level of detail to ask every Flutter finalist for.

If you'd rather have help deciding before you hire a builder at all, our sibling ranking of app development consulting firms scores firms that sell discovery and technical due diligence rather than builds.

A worked example makes the published numbers useful. This one is a scenario, not a client.

Consider a regional physical therapy group that wants a patient app on iOS and Android: booking, home exercise videos, secure messaging and reminders. It has about $90,000 approved and wants both apps live within six months. Its web booking portal is already built in React.

Step one is the framework. The group has React developers on its web portal, so React Native (shared skills, shared logic) or Capacitor (reuse the portal) are the realistic options. Flutter would mean hiring Dart skills it doesn't have. That cuts the ranked list to the six React Native firms plus GeekyAnts and Theodo.

Step two is the budget sanity check, and here the ranked firms can't help: none publishes a dollar figure. The only published bands I can point to are ours. Our hybrid app development page lists a business app tier at $60,000 to $150,000 over about 12 to 20 weeks, so $90,000 sits at 1.5x the bottom of that band and 0.6x the top. Plausible, not generous.

Step three is converting weekly billing into something comparable. Infinite Red bills by the week and App&Flow by the month for a two-engineer team. Ask each for the figure, then divide: $90,000 over a 20-week build is $4,500 a week for everything, including design and QA. If a firm's weekly figure for one senior engineer is above that, the budget buys less than 20 weeks, and you need a smaller first release.

Step four is the calendar. Six months is about 26 weeks. A 12 to 20 week build leaves 6 to 14 weeks of slack. Some of that goes to store review, and if the Android app will publish under a personal developer account, Google Play requires a closed test with at least 12 testers opted in for 14 days before production access. Two weeks of a 26-week plan is about 8% of the calendar, which is small unless nobody planned for it.

Step five is the part the table can't do. Install two named apps from each finalist and use them for a day. Then open one of the finalist's GitHub libraries and read the last ten closed issues. Twenty minutes of that tells you how a team handles problems better than any score I can publish.

The downside of this approach is that it rewards firms that publish. Some very good hybrid builders publish very little. If your favorite got a zero somewhere, send the email. One reply can turn a zero into a two.

Several figures came up again and again while I built this list, and none of them should travel as fact.

The first group is agency counters. Downloads across client apps, npm installs, products delivered, apps shipped, developers on staff. Several ranked firms publish these about their own work, with no method and nobody outside checking. None is in the scores, and I don't repeat the figures. GitHub stars are different: GitHub counts them, not the agency, which is why they're the only popularity number I use.

The second is performance parity claims. You'll read that hybrid apps reach some precise percentage of native performance, or save some precise percentage versus two native builds. Our own older service pages have carried numbers like that. I looked for a published benchmark with a method behind the circulating versions and didn't find one, so I don't use them, here or anywhere. Performance depends on the app, and the honest test is a prototype on a mid-range Android phone.

The third is framework market share. Every hybrid article leads with who is "winning" between React Native and Flutter, usually from a developer survey that measures who answered it, not what ships. It doesn't change your decision, which should follow your team's skills.

The fourth is rates from directory snippets. Search results attribute hourly rates and minimum project sizes to two of the ranked firms from Clutch profiles. Clutch blocks automated reading, so I couldn't confirm them at the source, and I didn't print or score them.

And the fifth is client outcomes on agency pages: funding rounds raised, chart positions, retention lifts. One ranked firm's client story leads with exactly that kind of result. It may be true. It's still the client's outcome as told by the vendor, and I don't repeat it.

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

• No clause assigning code to you: All ten ranked firms publish nothing on IP. Get a written assignment covering the app code, native modules, design files and build configuration.
• Developer accounts in the agency's name: Your Apple Developer account, Google Play Console and Expo or Firebase projects should be in your name, with the agency invited. Transferring apps between accounts later is slow.
• Framework chosen before discovery: React Native, Flutter or Capacitor should follow from your team's skills and your existing code, not from the agency's default. Ask for the reasoning in writing.
• No plan for native modules: Every hybrid app eventually needs some Swift or Kotlin. Ask who writes it and whether they've done it before on a named app.
• Abandoned libraries in the dependency list: Ask for the planned library list and check when each was last released. A library nobody maintains becomes your maintenance problem.
• No store release plan: Store review, the Google Play closed test for personal accounts and signing keys all take time. A proposal that ends at code complete isn't finished.
• Over-the-air updates with no policy: Tools that push JavaScript updates without a store release are useful, but ask what they'll change that way and what always goes through review.
• Counters on slide one: Downloads and apps delivered are marketing. Ask for three named apps you can install instead, and install them.

We publish our own version of these terms on the React Native development service page, including what's included and how engagements are structured. Use it as a checklist against any proposal, ours included.

Here is what I chased and couldn't establish, and what could go wrong if you lean on this list too hard.

• Code quality: No neutral benchmark of hybrid agencies exists, and I didn't audit anyone's apps. The ranking measures disclosure and public code, not delivery.
• Stars as a signal: GitHub stars show popularity, not maintenance quality, and a library can be popular because it is old. Check recent releases and issue response, not just the count.
• Directory curation: Neither Expo nor Flutter explains on its directory page exactly how firms are admitted or ordered. A listing is a relationship, not a certification.
• Clutch counts and rates: Clutch blocks automated reads. None of its figures is scored.
• Acquisition status: Searches found no 2024 to 2026 deals for the ten beyond Callstack's purchase of Margelo. That isn't proof there were none, and this market consolidates quickly.
• Contract terms: IP and warranty terms usually live in an agreement nobody publishes. Absence on a website isn't absence in a contract.

The main risk is using the rank as a decision rather than a shortlist. What does that cost you? Probably a few weeks: if a top-ranked firm turns out wrong for you in the first calls, you move to the next name. The worst case is signing without the IP clause because the firm scored well here, and that one is avoidable with a single email. Bounded downside, which is why I still think a disclosure-based list is the right tool for the first cut.

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

So let me score it the same way first. Named cross-platform apps: 1. We have two named Capacitor apps with case studies, Fighter Cut and The Corner, and the rubric asks for three. Framework directory: 0. I looked for us in the Expo and Flutter directories today and we're in neither. Open source: 0. Our GitHub organization has no public repositories. Pricing: 2, because our hybrid service page publishes bands of $20,000 to $60,000, $60,000 to $150,000 and $150,000 to $200,000 and up. IP terms: 2, because section 16.3 of our public terms and conditions transfers ownership of the developed code to the client on full payment. Read the fine print too: ownership stays with us if the project isn't paid in full, and we keep our pre-existing and generic code (templates, reusable components, know-how). Years operating: 2, because our about page states 2016 in France and a US company since 2019.

That's 7 of 12. It ties Echobind, which beats us on named apps, so on points we'd be ninth of eleven. I'd rather print that than tune the rubric until we came first.

So why is it still my pick?Because the rubric measures what's visible across the whole market, and a particular buyer cares about a particular subset. Our zeros are in directories and open source. Every ranked firm's zeros are in price and IP. If you're a founder or operator who wants a senior team, a number before the first call and to own everything at the end, the second pair is the one that decides your contract.

Concretely: we're a senior-led, Black-owned Los Angeles app and AI agency. Hybrid apps run $20,000 to $60,000 for an MVP launch in about 8 to 12 weeks, $60,000 to $150,000 for a business app in about 12 to 20 weeks, and $150,000 to $200,000 and up for an enterprise platform. Senior time is $150 to $225 an hour, retainers run $2,500 to $9,500 a month, and you get a fixed-price phased proposal within 5 business days, a 30-day post-launch warranty and full source code and IP ownership once the project is paid in full.

Run the same arithmetic I ran for the others. At $150 to $225 an hour, a 40-hour week of one senior engineer is $6,000 to $9,000. That's the figure I told you to ask the ranked firms for, so you can compare like with like.

Now the proof, limited to what the case studies say. Fighter Cut is React 19 and Vite in Capacitor 8 for iOS, local-first on IndexedDB, with a five-phase weight-cut planner built backwards from weigh-in and a fully scripted iOS build pipeline through the App Store Connect API. The Corner is its coach companion on the same Supabase backend, with row-level security and a consent model that keeps a fighter's meal photos and notes away from coaches. Both were in App Store Connect with internal TestFlight live in late August 2026. There are no download or revenue numbers in those case studies, so I have none to give you.

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 the framework first, from your team's skills and any existing web code, and write one paragraph on why. Then use the buyer-type table to cut this list to three firms that work in it.
2. 2.Install two named apps from each finalist and use them for a day, then open one of each firm's GitHub libraries and read the last ten closed issues. Drop anyone whose apps or issue replies you wouldn't want your name on.
3. 3.Email the survivors the same four requests: a fixed-price phased proposal or a weekly figure, the names of the people who will build the app, the IP assignment clause from their standard agreement, and who owns the Apple and Google developer accounts. Note who answers all four.

Whoever answers those four cleanly, and whose apps held up on your phone, is probably your developer. Time to send the emails.