Orthogonal vs Softeq: full comparison for 2026
Quick verdict
Orthogonal (4.2/5) edges ahead of Softeq (3.9/5) overall. Orthogonal is the better choice for SaMD and device companion apps. Softeq is the stronger option for connected devices needing hardware plus apps. The right choice depends on your project size, budget, and required tech stack.
Orthogonal vs Softeq: head-to-head summary
| Criterion | Orthogonal | Softeq |
|---|---|---|
| Founded | 1998 | 1997 |
| HQ | Chicago, IL, USA | Houston, TX, USA |
| Team size | 11–60 | 250–500 |
| Rating | 4.2 / 5 | 3.9 / 5 |
| Primary differentiator | Agile delivery adapted to FDA-regulated software, focused on the app and cloud side of connected devices | Hardware, firmware, mobile and cloud teams in one company, with ISO 13485 in place |
| Pricing model | Time and materials, dedicated team | Fixed project, time and materials, dedicated team |
| Min. engagement | Not disclosed | Not disclosed |
| Primary tech stack | iOS, Android, Cloud (AWS/Azure) | PCB design, Embedded Linux, RTOS |
| Industries served | Digital health, Wearables & remote monitoring, Diagnostics & lab devices | Wearables & remote monitoring, Digital health, Consumer electronics, Industrial |
Orthogonal vs Softeq: overview
Orthogonal
Orthogonal is a Chicago software company founded in 1998 and led by founder and CEO Bernhard Kappe, with its office in the Merchandise Mart. It builds Software as a Medical Device (SaMD), digital therapeutics and the mobile and cloud software that connects to medical devices, working with venture-backed startups as well as established medtech and pharma companies. Directory listings describe ISO 13485 and HIPAA compliance and Class I–III experience. Team size estimates vary widely, from about 11 to 60 people.
Softeq
Houston-based Softeq Development Corporation dates to 1997 and builds hardware, embedded, mobile, web and cloud products. The company holds ISO 13485 certification, which it presents as evidence that it can build medical devices to industry rules. Medical devices are one of several markets it serves, along with consumer electronics and industrial IoT. Its team is in the 250 to 500 range.
Services and capabilities: Orthogonal vs Softeq
| Capability | Orthogonal | Softeq |
|---|---|---|
| Electronics & PCB design | ✗ | ✓ |
| Firmware & embedded software | ✗ | ✓ |
| SaMD & companion apps | ✓ | ✓ |
| Connected devices & IoT | ✓ | ✓ |
| Industrial design & human factors | ✗ | ✗ |
| Mechanical engineering | ✗ | ✗ |
| Device cybersecurity | ✓ | ✗ |
| Regulatory & QMS support | ✓ | ✗ |
| Manufacturing & scale-up | ✗ | ✗ |
Tech stack comparison: Orthogonal vs Softeq
| Framework / platform | Orthogonal | Softeq |
|---|---|---|
| Embedded C/C++ | N/A | N/A |
| Embedded Linux | N/A | ✓ |
| RTOS | N/A | ✓ |
| BLE | ✓ | ✓ |
| Cloud (AWS/Azure) | ✓ | ✓ |
| IEC 62304 | ✓ | N/A |
| ISO 14971 | ✓ | N/A |
| ISO 13485 QMS | N/A | N/A |
| Qt | N/A | N/A |
Pricing comparison: Orthogonal vs Softeq
| Criterion | Orthogonal | Softeq |
|---|---|---|
| Minimum engagement | Not disclosed | Not disclosed |
| Engagement models | Dedicated team, Time & materials | Dedicated team, Fixed project, Time & materials |
| Rate transparency | Not public | Not public |
| Price tier | Mid-market | Mid-market |
Target audience comparison: Orthogonal vs Softeq
| Dimension | Orthogonal | Softeq |
|---|---|---|
| Best company size | Startup to mid-market | Startup to mid-market |
| Best industries | Digital health, Wearables & remote monitoring, Diagnostics & lab devices | Wearables & remote monitoring, Digital health, Consumer electronics |
| Best use cases | Building a mobile app that controls a Class II device, Developing a digital therapeutic for FDA clearance | Connected home-use device with a mobile app, Firmware and cloud for a remote monitoring wearable |
| Typical project type | Dedicated team | Dedicated team |
Orthogonal vs Softeq: pros and cons
| Orthogonal | |
|---|---|
| + | Focused on regulated medical software for more than a decade |
| + | Publishes practical guidance on agile methods under FDA rules, a sign of real process experience |
| + | Strong on mobile apps that talk to devices over BLE |
| + | Small enough for direct access to senior people |
| - | No hardware or firmware design |
| - | Small team limits how many parallel workstreams it can staff |
| - | Team size data is inconsistent across sources |
| Softeq | |
|---|---|
| + | Covers hardware, firmware, apps and cloud for connected devices |
| + | ISO 13485 certification |
| + | Long company history since 1997 |
| + | Flexible engagement models including dedicated teams |
| - | Generalist firm where medical is one market among many |
| - | Few public medical device case studies |
| - | No industrial design or manufacturing |
Who should choose Orthogonal?
A typical fit: building a mobile app that controls a Class II device.
Agile delivery adapted to FDA-regulated software, focused on the app and cloud side of connected devices. Minimum engagement is not publicly disclosed. Works best with clients in Digital health, Wearables & remote monitoring, Diagnostics & lab devices.
Who should choose Softeq?
A typical fit: connected home-use device with a mobile app.
Hardware, firmware, mobile and cloud teams in one company, with ISO 13485 in place. Minimum engagement is not publicly disclosed. Works best with clients in Wearables & remote monitoring, Digital health, Consumer electronics, Industrial.
Decision matrix: Orthogonal vs Softeq
| Your situation | Recommended choice |
|---|---|
| You need full-ownership delivery on a defined project scope | Softeq |
| You need a large dedicated team for an ongoing programme | Orthogonal |
| Your budget is at the lower end | Compare: Orthogonal (Not disclosed) vs Softeq (Not disclosed) |
| You need specialist depth in a specific vertical | Softeq |
| You need staff augmentation or team extension | Neither; consider alternatives that offer staff aug |
| You need consulting before committing to a build | Both may offer discovery engagements |
Use case fit: Orthogonal vs Softeq
| Use case | Orthogonal fit | Softeq fit | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Building a mobile app that controls a Class II device | Strong | Limited | Orthogonal |
| Developing a digital therapeutic for FDA clearance | Strong | Limited | Orthogonal |
| Connected home-use device with a mobile app | Limited | Strong | Softeq |
| Firmware and cloud for a remote monitoring wearable | Limited | Strong | Softeq |
Verdict: Orthogonal vs Softeq
Orthogonal (4.2/5) is the stronger overall choice for most Medical Device Development projects. Agile delivery adapted to FDA-regulated software, focused on the app and cloud side of connected devices.
Softeq (3.9/5) is worth a look if you need firmware and cloud for a remote monitoring wearable. If your situation matches that, Softeq is a competitive option.
Related comparisons
Orthogonal vs Softeq FAQ
Is Orthogonal better than Softeq?
Orthogonal (4.2/5) scores higher overall, but "better" depends on your use case. Orthogonal's strongest advantage: focused on regulated medical software for more than a decade. Softeq's strongest advantage: covers hardware, firmware, apps and cloud for connected devices.
How do Orthogonal and Softeq differ in pricing?
Orthogonal uses time and materials, dedicated team pricing. Softeq uses fixed project, time and materials, dedicated team pricing. Neither firm publishes a full rate card; a discovery call is required for project-specific quotes.
Which is better for enterprise: Orthogonal or Softeq?
Softeq is the larger team and typically the better enterprise-scale choice. For very large programmes, verify team size and compliance coverage directly with each company before shortlisting.
What are the main differences between Orthogonal and Softeq?
Orthogonal's primary differentiator is: agile delivery adapted to FDA-regulated software, focused on the app and cloud side of connected devices. Softeq's primary differentiator is: Hardware, firmware, mobile and cloud teams in one company, with ISO 13485 in place. They also differ in team size (11–60 vs 250–500), minimum engagement (Not disclosed vs Not disclosed), and primary industries served (Digital health, Wearables & remote monitoring vs Wearables & remote monitoring, Digital health).
Verify all details directly with each company before making a decision.