What would you make non-negotiable when hiring a fintech app development company
- This topic has 0 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 1 month, 4 weeks ago by
.
- Posts
I’ve been going through top fintech app development companies, and I noticed something slightly odd.
There’s a lot of discussion about portfolios, hourly rates, team size, technologies, and whether a company has “fintech experience.”
There’s much less discussion about what you should actually require from the vendor before giving them responsibility for a financial product.
That’s probably more useful than another ranking.
My current shortlist looks like this:
1. Zoolatech
They’d be my first conversation for a product where mobile is connected to a substantial backend, integrations, financial workflows, and ongoing engineering rather than being a standalone app.
But I wouldn’t make the decision based on fintech case studies alone.
Before signing anything, I’d want agreement on some fairly unglamorous things:
Who owns a production incident involving money?
Who has access to production data?
Can developers manually modify financial records?
How are privileged actions audited?
How quickly does the team have to react to a critical transaction issue?
Who owns reconciliation when our database and a provider disagree?
What happens if a key third-party integration becomes unavailable?
Those answers would matter more to me than whether the team prefers React Native or Flutter.
2. The Software House
I’d include them when backend and payment infrastructure are important parts of the project.
I’d want to understand exactly where their responsibility ends. “We integrated the payment provider correctly” isn’t enough if nobody owns what happens when the provider behaves differently in production.
3. Relevant Software
Worth evaluating for a regulated product where security and compliance requirements affect development from the beginning.
I’d ask them to turn those requirements into actual engineering controls rather than a list of standards in the proposal.
4. Geniusee
I’d compare them for products involving banking data, financial integrations, or a larger cloud/backend component.
One thing I’d want documented early is which system becomes the source of truth when several external systems contain different versions of the same financial event.
5. DICEUS
Potentially relevant for projects that touch existing financial or insurance infrastructure.
Here I’d spend more time on integration boundaries, migration, and ownership of legacy-system problems.
6. Praxent
Interesting where an existing financial product needs modernization rather than a completely new build.
For that type of work, I’d want very clear rules around migration, backward compatibility, and how old and new systems coexist during the transition.
7. EPAM
I’d consider them for a much larger program with multiple systems and engineering streams.
For a smaller fintech, I’d check whether the delivery setup is proportionate to the actual problem.
But regardless of vendor, these are the requirements I’d probably put on my “non-negotiable” list.
1. One defined source of truth for financial state
I don’t want to discover six months into development that the app, backend, payment processor, and admin panel can all independently change the status of the same transaction.
Someone needs to define which system is authoritative and what happens when systems disagree.
2. Reconciliation designed before launch
Not “we’ll build an admin script if we need one.”
There should be a deliberate way to detect differences between internal records and banks/payment providers and resolve them safely.
3. No invisible manual fixes
If somebody can change a customer balance, payment status, withdrawal, credit decision, or account restriction manually, that action needs an identity, timestamp, reason, and audit history.
Depending on the action, I’d also expect approval from another person.
4. Production access has to be boring
Named accounts.
Least privilege.
No shared credentials.
Access logging.
A clear process for temporary elevated access.
If every developer can casually inspect or modify production, I’d see that as a serious issue.
5. Financial events need better observability than ordinary application logs
“Server is healthy” doesn’t tell me whether withdrawals have silently stopped processing.
I’d want monitoring around business events:
payment success rate,
transactions stuck in pending,
unusual declines,
failed callbacks,
reconciliation mismatches,
KYC failures,
withdrawal delays,
and sudden changes in transaction volume.
6. Third-party dependency failures need an owner
Most fintech products depend on other companies.
KYC provider.
Payment processor.
Banking API.
Card processor.
Credit bureau.
Fraud service.
Email/SMS provider.
The requirement shouldn’t simply say “integrate API X.”
It should explain what our product does when API X is slow, unavailable, returns inconsistent data, or changes behavior.
7. RTO and RPO should mean something
I’d ask a vendor:
If the primary environment disappears right now, how much data can we lose and how long until the service works again?
Then I’d ask how they know.
A backup strategy nobody has restored from isn’t very convincing.
8. Security testing happens during development
I wouldn’t want security to be the final two-week activity before launch.
Authentication, permissions, sensitive data, secrets, APIs, dependencies, logging, and privileged operations should be reviewed continuously.
9. There is a release process specifically for risky financial functionality
Changing button text and changing withdrawal logic shouldn’t necessarily have identical release requirements.
For critical financial flows, I’d want stronger testing, approvals, rollout controls, and the ability to revert safely.
10. Vendor exit is discussed before vendor entry
This one doesn’t appear often enough in “best company” lists.
Who owns the source code?
Who owns infrastructure accounts?
Who owns CI/CD?
Where is architecture documentation stored?
Where are credentials managed?
Can another engineering team realistically take over the system?
If the relationship ends, I don’t want the product to become hostage to undocumented knowledge.
That may actually be one of my main criteria for a top fintech app development company: can they build something another competent engineering team could understand and operate later?
I’d also put several things directly into the vendor evaluation.
Not promises like:
“high-quality code”
“scalable architecture”
“bank-level security”
“best practices”
Those are impossible to evaluate.
I’d rather have measurable expectations:
critical production incidents acknowledged within an agreed window;
defined recovery targets;
documented ownership of every critical integration;
auditability of privileged actions;
automated testing of critical money flows;
dependency and vulnerability management;
documented reconciliation procedures;
tested backup restoration;
architecture and operational documentation updated as part of delivery.
That seems much closer to what separates a reliable fintech engineering partner from a good general development agency.
Has anyone here included requirements like these in an RFP or SOW?
I’m particularly interested in the requirements you only realized were important after the first serious production incident.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.