Yurops

BACKGROUND

Please describe your company and position.

I am the CEO & Founder of Trackit Labs

Describe what your company does in a single sentence.

Trackit Labs is the official data infrastructure layer for professional padel. We capture live scoring at tour events, validate it with computer vision, and license the resulting feed to betting operators, broadcasters and tour partners. We hold exclusive betting-data rights to the Generali Hexagon Cup and APPT, and we're an IBIA member. Based in Madrid.

OPPORTUNITY / CHALLENGE

What specific goals or objectives did you hire Yurops to accomplish?

• Take the platform from prototype to production-grade infrastructure capable of serving a live betting-data feed
• Build the DevOps layer — containerisation, CI/CD, monitoring and alerting — for zero-downtime operation during tournaments
• Establish QA and data-integrity validation so the feed meets operator and regulatory standards

SOLUTION

How did you find Yurops?

• Online Search
• Clutch Site

Why did you select Yurops over others?

• High ratings
• Good value for cost
• Referred to me

How many teammates from Yurops were assigned to this project?

2-5 Employees

Describe the scope of work in detail. Please include a summary of key deliverables.

Scope covered backend engineering, DevOps and QA for a live sports data platform serving betting operators. Key deliverables: Production-grade backend architecture for real-time match scoring and event data Containerised deployment with CI/CD pipelines Monitoring, alerting and logging for zero-downtime operation during live tournaments Automated test coverage plus a structured data-integrity validation layer against the official scoring source API and feed delivery layer for downstream operator consumption On-site/remote implementation support during live tournament match days Technical documentation and handover for ongoing internal maintenance

RESULTS & FEEDBACK

What were the measurable outcomes from the project that demonstrate progress or success?

Platform delivered and live across 25 tournaments with zero unplanned downtime during match play.

Feed latency reduced to under 1 second from point completion to operator delivery.

Data accuracy of 99.7% against official scoring, validated match-by-match by the computer vision layer.

All project milestones met on schedule. 

Infrastructure passed operator technical due diligence, enabling commercial licensing agreements to go live.

Manual releases replaced by automated CI/CD, cutting deploy time and eliminating release-day errors.

Describe their project management. Did they deliver items on time? How did they respond to your needs?

Self-managed, which is exactly what we needed. There was no project manager layer — Alex and Rostyslav scoped the work themselves from the business requirements I gave them, sequenced it, and delivered on the dates they committed to. Deadlines were met without me chasing. Communication was direct and low-overhead: async by default, with calls when a decision needed context. When priorities shifted — which happened often, since our timelines were tied to tournament calendars and partner negotiations — they re-planned quickly instead of treating scope as fixed. They also pushed back when something didn't make sense technically or commercially, which I value more than compliance. As a non-technical founder, that judgement is the difference between a build that works and a build that just matches the spec.

What was your primary form of communication with Yurops?

• Virtual Meeting
• Email or Messaging App

What did you find most impressive or unique about this company?

Two things set them apart.

The first is how well they translate business intent into technical decisions. I'm not an engineer — I'd bring commercial requirements, regulatory constraints and partner obligations, and they'd return with the architecture and the trade-offs already reasoned through. Most senior engineers wait for a spec. These two write the spec, then build it.

The second is the pairing itself. Alex and Rostyslav have worked together for years, and it shows in the throughput — no ramp-up period, no duplicated effort, no ambiguity over ownership. You're hiring a functioning team rather than two individual contractors, which for a small company means you get output disproportionate to headcount.

Are there any areas for improvement or something Yurops could have done differently?

Little to fault on delivery. The one area is packaging around the work: as a small senior team, they're lighter on formal documentation and written progress reporting than a larger agency would be. It never affected outcomes, but as a non-technical founder I occasionally had to ask for the written version of something already handled — useful when you need to show a board or a partner where a build stands. Making that output standard rather than on-request would make the work easier for clients to represent internally.