Backend & API Development for Digital Product Agency
-
Custom Software Development IT Staff Augmentation
- $10,000 to $49,999
- July - Sep. 2025
- Quality
- 1.5
- Schedule
- 1.0
- Cost
- 1.0
- Willing to Refer
- 1.0
"We did not find anything impressive or unique about the company."
- Other industries
- Montevideo, Uruguay
- 1-10 Employees
- Online Review
- Verified
ZirconTech provided backend and API development services for a digital product agency. The team designed and implemented API endpoints, added unit tests, and provided DevOps support on Google Cloud Platform.
ZirconTech's work was incomplete and required major rework, resulting in more costs and reputational risk for the client. While their GCP DevOps engineer was responsive and reliable, the team's overall project management was poor, and they breached trust by contacting the client's customer directly. This review includes the service provider's response.
The client submitted this review online.
BACKGROUND
Please describe your company and position.
I am the Founder of ataraxy
Describe what your company does in a single sentence.
Ataraxy is a digital product agency that builds and scales market-ready software, AI, and hardware solutions for clients across industries.
OPPORTUNITY / CHALLENGE
What specific goals or objectives did you hire ZirconTech to accomplish?
- We hired ZirconTech to deliver backend/API development in Java, with the goal of producing maintainable, well-structured, and professionally tested code that could be integrated into a client project without causing rework
SOLUTION
How did you find ZirconTech?
- Online Search
- Clutch Site
Why did you select ZirconTech over others?
- High ratings
- Close to my geographic location
How many teammates from ZirconTech were assigned to this project?
2-5 Employees
Describe the scope of work in detail. Please include a summary of key deliverables.
The scope of work included backend/API development in Java and DevOps support on Google Cloud Platform. ZirconTech was responsible for designing and implementing API endpoints, following proper code conventions, adding unit tests, logging, and error handling, and ensuring the codebase was production-ready. In addition, we contracted a GCP DevOps engineer from their team to handle infrastructure setup, deployment pipelines, and cloud resource configuration. Key deliverables were: (1) properly structured and documented API endpoints aligned with specifications, (2) tested and maintainable backend modules, (3) DevOps support for CI/CD and cloud infrastructure, and (4) documentation for both code and deployment processes.
RESULTS & FEEDBACK
What were the measurable outcomes from the project that demonstrate progress or success?
The only partial success in this engagement was the GCP DevOps engineer, who supported our cloud infrastructure and CI/CD needs appropriately. However, the backend/API development was not successful: the endpoints delivered were incomplete, lacked proper testing, logging, and error handling, and required us to redo significant portions of the work. As a result, while we saw some progress on the DevOps side, the project overall produced no measurable positive outcomes and created additional cost and reputational risk with our client.
Describe their project management. Did they deliver items on time? How did they respond to your needs?
Project management was poor. Items were not delivered on time, and when issues were raised, ZirconTech responded with superficial artifacts (such as Postman screenshots of 200 responses) instead of addressing the underlying quality concerns. They did not demonstrate accountability or a structured approach to delivery, and communication often deflected rather than resolved problems. When we escalated concerns about a developer’s behavior, they failed to handle the matter internally, leaving us to deal with the fallout directly. This lack of governance compounded delays, rework, and additional cost. The only exception was the GCP DevOps engineer, who was responsive and reliable within his scope.
What was your primary form of communication with ZirconTech?
- Virtual Meeting
- Email or Messaging App
What did you find most impressive or unique about this company?
The only positive aspect was the responsiveness of the individual GCP DevOps engineer we engaged, who worked reliably within his scope. Beyond that, we did not find anything impressive or unique about the company.
Are there any areas for improvement or something ZirconTech could have done differently?
There are several areas for improvement. First, ZirconTech needs to deliver work that meets professional software development standards: proper code conventions, testing, logging, and error handling should be mandatory. Second, they must implement real project management practices, with accountability for timelines and deliverables, instead of deflecting with superficial artifacts. Third, they need to address personnel issues internally — when we raised concerns about a developer’s behavior, nothing was done. Finally, they must respect contractual boundaries; contacting our clients directly was a breach of trust and of our master agreement. Had these areas been handled correctly, the project outcome could have been very different.
Company Responses
The service provider responded on August 14, 2026.
Thank you for the feedback. We see this engagement differently, and we think readers deserve the context.
This was a time and materials staffing engagement rather than a fixed scope delivery project. Between June and September 2025 we placed two engineers, a GCP DevOps engineer and a Java Tech Lead, into our client's end client team, working under that team's technical direction and billed hourly against signed SOWs. There was no fixed deliverables list and no fixed price.
There is context the review leaves out. An invoice from this engagement remains unpaid, and the quality concerns described here were raised for the first time when that invoice came due. July and August hours for both engineers were approved and paid without objection, and the Java engineer's assignment was extended by signed addendum on 28 August through the end of October. We asked for documentation of the technical deficiencies described here and never received any.
On one point we want to be direct. We did contact the end client once, in October, after we were told our invoice would not be paid because the end client had refused to pay it. We had already spent more than a week trying to resolve this with our client directly, by message and by phone, and those attempts went nowhere. We asked the end client a single question, which was whether the statement made to us was accurate. We solicited no business and shared no confidential information. Our agreement contains non solicitation and confidentiality clauses, and neither one covers that question.
We remain willing to resolve the commercial matter directly.
Andres Zunino, CEO
RATINGS
-
Quality
1.5Service & Deliverables
"The backend/API deliverables consistently failed to meet professional standards. Endpoints were incomplete, lacked testing, logging, and error handling, and forced costly rework with our client. The only acceptable contribution came from a separate GCP DevOps engineer, but overall delivery quality was well below expectations."
-
Schedule
1.0On time / deadlines
"Deadlines were routinely missed. When delays or quality issues were raised, ZirconTech responded with superficial artifacts (e.g., Postman screenshots of 200 responses) instead of addressing the problems. This caused extended timelines and project instability."
-
Cost
1.0Value / within estimates
"The engagement produced negative value. Most of the backend work had to be redone internally, creating additional costs far beyond the fees paid. The ROI of the project was negative, as we spent more fixing issues than we did on the original contract."
-
Willing to Refer
1.0NPS