Reviewed by

Software Integration Services

Pharos Production delivers Software Integration services that connect your disparate systems into a unified, automated workflow.

  • 90+ engineers
  • 28 industries
  • 13+ years in business
96 reviews 138 reviews 11 reviews 54 reviews 19 reviews 5.0 318+ verified reviews

Your business results matter

Achieve them with minimized risk through our bespoke innovation capabilities

Your contact details
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Please enter your message
* required

We typically reply within 4 hours. Prefer email? [email protected]

SOC 2 Type II GDPR ISO 27001 NDA Protected

Aligned with these frameworks. Audit reports and certifications available on request.

Reviewed and updated
Last reviewed July 12, 2026 by Dmytro Nasyrov, Founder and CTO. Content reflects Pharos Production delivery data as of the review date. Editorial policy.
Dmytro Nasyrov - Founder and CTO of Pharos Production

Reviewed by Dmytro Nasyrov

Founder and CTO

23+ years in custom software development. Led 110+ projects across FinTech, healthcare, Web3 and enterprise, ISO 27001-aligned team.

What is software integration?

Software integration is the engineering of connections between independent systems so they share data, trigger events and stay consistent. It covers point-to-point connections, message buses, middleware platforms, ETL pipelines and the operational discipline that keeps integrations from quietly drifting out of sync.
Authoritative citations 12 sources
  1. DORA State of DevOps Report The Google DORA State of DevOps annual report defines the four key software delivery metrics (deployment frequency, lead time for changes, mean time to restore, change failure rate) that we instrument on every production engagement to benchmark delivery performance. dora.dev
  2. Stack Overflow Developer Survey The Stack Overflow Developer Survey documents language, framework, database and tooling adoption across tens of thousands of engineers annually, and we use the trend lines to validate stack choices against hiring pool depth for each client. survey.stackoverflow.co
  3. ThoughtWorks Technology Radar The ThoughtWorks Technology Radar tracks tools, platforms, techniques and languages across adopt, trial, assess and hold rings twice yearly, and is a cross-check we use to validate architectural recommendations against industry consensus. thoughtworks.com
  4. Google SRE Book The Google SRE book codifies service-level objectives, error budgets, incident response and postmortem culture that our production readiness gates adopt directly when handing over a platform to a client operations team. sre.google
  5. Martin Fowler bliki Martin Fowler's bliki is the most cited reference for enterprise architecture patterns including microservices, strangler fig, CQRS, event sourcing and refactoring, which shapes how we describe and implement architecture decisions in ADRs on every client engagement. martinfowler.com
  6. Gartner Custom Application Services Magic Quadrant Gartner publishes multiple Magic Quadrant reports covering custom application services, digital engineering and outsourced development that identify market leaders, completeness of vision and niche specialists across the global software services industry. gartner.com
  7. ISO 27001 Information Security Standard ISO 27001:2022 defines the internationally recognized information security management system requirements that Pharos Production operates under, shaping the control framework we inherit and extend for client software engagements. iso.org
  8. OWASP Top 10 The OWASP Top 10 ranks the highest-impact web application security risks and is the single most cited threat reference for application security programs, which every Pharos build is reviewed against before production release. owasp.org
  9. NIST Secure Software Development Framework NIST SSDF SP 800-218 defines secure development practices including threat modelling, SBOM generation, vulnerability disclosure and supply chain controls, which we treat as the baseline Software Development Lifecycle checklist on every client engagement. csrc.nist.gov
  10. CNCF Cloud Native Landscape The CNCF Cloud Native Landscape maps the full cloud-native ecosystem across orchestration, runtime, observability, security and database categories, useful reference material we consult when validating platform choices for client Kubernetes and service mesh engagements. landscape.cncf.io
  11. Accelerate by Forsgren, Humble, Kim Accelerate distills the multi-year DORA research program into the book-length case for DevOps practices correlated with high-performance software delivery, and is the single most cited academic reference for the delivery metrics we ship inside every client engagement. itrevolution.com
  12. IEEE SWEBOK The IEEE Software Engineering Body of Knowledge codifies the professional knowledge areas covering requirements, design, construction, testing, maintenance, configuration management and engineering economics that underpin every professional software services engagement. computer.org
What we do not do
  • Replatforming the systems being integrated
  • Custom middleware platforms when an off-the-shelf option would fit
  • Integrations without a reconciliation strategy
  • Engagements without a named integration owner on the client side
  • Integrations that would create circular dependencies between business systems

Software integration at Pharos at a glance

  • Integrations shipped: 60+ production integrations since 2017 across SaaS, FinTech, manufacturing and healthcare-adjacent
  • Stack: Event-driven (Kafka, EventBridge, RabbitMQ), iPaaS (Workato, MuleSoft, Boomi) and ETL (Fivetran, Airbyte, dbt) per use case
  • Default discipline: Idempotent handlers, dead-letter queues, reconciliation reports and per-partner SLA dashboards in every engagement
  • Pricing: Single integration from $28,000; multi-system program $80,000-$320,000; ongoing operations $5,500/month
  • Reconciliation: Daily or hourly reconciliation reports tied to a business KPI, not just record counts
  • Vendor agnostic: We pick the right tool per case; no preferred vendor commission structure
  • Honest scope: We recommend consolidation or retirement when integration would mask a deeper problem

Custom integration vs iPaaS platform: which is the honest answer?

iPaaS platforms are perfect for standard connectors and become expensive when the work gets custom. Custom integration is the opposite. Picking the wrong one creates either vendor lock-in or maintenance debt.

Factor Custom integration iPaaS platform
Setup cost Higher upfront Lower upfront
Run cost Lower; you own the infra Higher; subscription scales with volume
Customization Unlimited Constrained by connector library
Vendor lock-in Low Medium to high
When it fits Custom logic, regulated data, long-term scale Standard connectors, fast time to value, low volume

How we deliver integrations that survive the next vendor swap

Pharos Verified Delivery applied to integration: every connection ships with idempotent event handling, a reconciliation report, a rollback path and an observable health metric. Integrations that fail silently are the most expensive kind.

Pharos Verified Delivery 4-phase methodology with typical durations and deliverables
  1. Phase 01 / 04

    Paid Discovery

    2-4 weeks
    • Technical validation
    • Architecture proposal
    • Scope refined estimate
    82% on-schedule with discovery
  2. Phase 02 / 04

    Iterative Build

    2-week sprints
    • Working demos every sprint
    • CTO review at milestones
    • ADRs documented
    Transparent progress tracking
  3. Phase 03 / 04

    Production Readiness

    • Monitoring and alerting
    • Security audit Pen test
    • Runbooks and rollback
    ISO 27001 aligned
  4. Phase 04 / 04

    Support

    Ongoing
    • Security patches
    • Performance tuning
    • 4h SLA response
    Continuous improvement

Pharos Verified Delivery applied to 110+ production applications since 2013

Integration projects that did not become hairballs

Integration projects fail when they create new coupling instead of removing it. Each engagement below was sliced into reversible steps and delivered without lock-in to a single vendor.

CRM-to-ERP sync (Q4 2024) Q4 2024 · Distribution, US
Before

Salesforce and NetSuite syncing via a brittle 2014-era middleware with daily failures.

After

Replaced the middleware with an event-driven integration using AWS EventBridge, idempotent handlers and reconciliation reports. Silent failures dropped to zero over the first quarter.

We did not replace either ERP or CRM. We replaced the connector and made it observable. Most integration value is observability, not connection.

Multi-vendor data warehouse (Q1 2025) Q1 2025 · SaaS, EU
Before

Data spread across 11 SaaS tools with manual exports for monthly reporting.

After

Built a Fivetran-fed Snowflake warehouse with dbt transformations and tested data tests. Reporting cycle cut from 5 days to 4 hours.

We chose Fivetran and Snowflake because the maintenance cost was lower than a custom ETL stack. Boring tools beat clever tools when the goal is reliability.

Webhook fan-out (Q3 2024) Q3 2024 · Marketplace, global
Before

Dozens of partner systems consuming order events via point-to-point webhooks; partner outages broke the marketplace.

After

Built an outbound webhook gateway with retries, dead-letter queue and per-partner SLA monitoring. Marketplace uptime rose to 99.97%.

We pulled the integration concerns into a gateway so the marketplace itself stopped owning partner reliability. Centralized retry logic was the entire fix.

Client names anonymized under NDA. Full case studies at /cases/.

When integration is the wrong move

Sometimes the right answer is to remove a system, consolidate two systems or accept that they should not be connected. We tell clients when integration is masking a deeper problem:

Projects we decline
  • Two systems that should be one (consolidation is the right answer)
  • Integration scoped to fix a process problem that should be redesigned
  • Integrations that would create circular dependencies between business systems
  • Workflows where eventual consistency is unacceptable but the systems are eventually consistent by design
  • Legacy systems on their way out where the integration would survive the system
Cheaper alternatives

Consolidation, retirement or process redesign is sometimes cheaper than integration. We will openly recommend any of those options when they fit, even though it shrinks the engagement scope.

Pharos integration portfolio

Pharos integration delivery portfolio observations, 2019-2026

Observations from 14 integration engagements 2019-2026 across FinTech, healthcare, SaaS and industrial enterprise portfolios.

  • 11 of 14 Missing contract tests

    11 of 14 programs we inherited had zero contract tests across team boundaries. Adding them surfaced breaking changes in 7 of 11 within the first sprint.[3]

  • 6 of 14 Retry storm incidents

    Median retry storm on inherited sync meshes caused a production incident within 90 days on 6 of 14 projects. Bulkhead plus timeout budgets prevented every recurrence.

  • -80% YoY Schema drift reduction

    Schema drift between producer and consumer caused 4 of the 14 most painful outages. Registry-enforced schemas cut drift incidents 80% year over year.

  • 38% Integration cost share

    Integration cost averaged 38% of total platform engineering spend across the portfolio. Reducing it took explicit platform-team investment that 9 of 14 organizations initially resisted.[11]

Software integration outlook 2026-2027

Software integration outlook 2026-2027 moved decisively from ESB-style middleware toward event-driven, schema-first and API-gateway-native architectures across enterprise portfolios.

  • Event-driven backbones

    Event-driven backbones (Kafka, NATS, Google Pub/Sub) replaced request/response ESBs for most greenfield integration work after the 2023-2025 monolith-to-event wave.[3]

  • Schema registries as contract anchor

    Schema registries (Confluent, AWS Glue, Apicurio) are the new contract anchor replacing per-endpoint hand-written DTOs.[5]

  • API gateways and BFF patterns

    API gateways plus BFF patterns (Kong, Apigee, Envoy, tRPC) became the default integration surface for SaaS portfolios.

  • Zero-trust east-west traffic

    Zero-trust policies on east-west traffic tightened after the 2024 identity-provider breach wave; mTLS plus SPIFFE IDs are now standard for integration meshes.[9]

Integration program 90-day evaluation template

Use this 8-point check to evaluate an integration program at the 90-day mark before signing the enterprise-wide rollout.

  1. 1

    Contract coverage

    Every integrated interface declared in a registry (OpenAPI, AsyncAPI, Proto, Avro).

  2. 2

    Backward compatibility

    Semver gates on every schema change, tested in CI.

  3. 3

    Observability

    Distributed traces across all hops of every critical integration flow.[4]

  4. 4

    Retry and DLQ

    Every async pipeline has a defined replay pathway.

  5. 5

    Idempotency

    Every write endpoint documented idempotent or marked explicitly non-idempotent.

  6. 6

    Security

    mTLS everywhere, token scopes audited, OWASP API Top 10 triaged.[8]

  7. 7

    Integration test coverage

    Contract tests for every cross-team surface.

  8. 8

    Runbook

    Every integration has a named owner, an SLO and an incident playbook.

Production post-mortem

Lesson from a 2024 FinTech integration program

The engagement covered 19 microservices and 4 external partners. The platform started as synchronous REST everywhere. A single partner API latency spike during Black Friday cascaded into a 42-minute outage on the payment flow because every downstream service was blocking. We rebuilt the critical path around three patterns that now ship by default: async event backbone (Kafka) for all non-user-blocking flows; circuit breakers plus bulkhead pools on every sync call with a published SLO; idempotency keys on every write across partner boundaries.[4]

The next peak-traffic event absorbed a 4x partner slowdown with zero user-visible incidents and the platform held its p99 budget through December.

Honest note on integration
Integration projects accumulate hidden maintenance over time. We design for that reality with idempotent handlers, reconciliation reports and version-controlled connector definitions, but we are honest that the 5-year TCO of any integration is significantly higher than the upfront cost.

Published record

Published Pharos research

Technical articles, comparison guides and methodology deep-dives we write from our own delivery experience.

Platforms we work with

Trusted by Coinbase, Consensys, Core Scientific, MicroStrategy, Gate.io and 10+ more Web3 and enterprise platforms

16+ partners

Our 16 technology partners include:

  • Consensys
  • Gate Io
  • Coinbase
  • Ludo
  • Core Scientific
  • Debut Infotech
  • Axoni
  • Alchemy
  • Starkware
  • Mara Holdings
  • MicroStrategy
  • Nubank
  • Okx
  • Uniswap
  • Riot
  • Leeway Hertz
  • Consensys
  • Gate Io
  • Coinbase
  • Core Scientific
  • Debut Infotech
  • Axoni
  • Alchemy
  • Starkware
  • Mara Holdings
  • MicroStrategy
  • Nubank
  • Okx
  • Uniswap
  • Riot
  • Leeway Hertz

About the founder and CTO

Dmytro Nasyrov

Dmytro Nasyrov

Founder and CTO Pharos Production

Ask the founder a question

I design and build reliable software solutions - from lightweight apps to high-load distributed systems and blockchain platforms.

PhD in Artificial Intelligence, MSc in Computer Science (with honors), MSc in Electronics & Precision Mechanics.

  • 13 years in architecture of great software solutions tailored to customer needs for startups and enterprises

  • 23 years of practical enterprise customized software production experience

  • Lecturer at the National Kyiv Polytechnic University

  • Doctor of Philosophy in Artificial Intelligence

  • Master's degree in Computer Science, completed with excellence

  • Master's degree in Electronics and precision mechanics engineering

Choose your cooperation model

Pharos Production offers three project models, MVP, Full-fledged Production and Full-cycle Development, priced from $10,000 to $80,000. An MVP prototype takes about 3 months.

MVP
MVP sprint

Scoped MVP with core user flows, clean codebase and production-ready deployment.

$11,000 - $27,000
Popular choice
Production
Production release

Full-feature build, QA, CI/CD and post-launch stabilization with SLA-backed support.

$27,000 - $55,000
Full-cycle
Full-cycle platform

End-to-end engagement: discovery, architecture, build, DevOps, QA and long-term evolution.

$55,000 - $110,000

Prices vary based on project scope, complexity, timeline and requirements. Hourly rates range from $35 to $75 depending on role and seniority. Contact us for a personalized estimate.

Interaction models for staff augmentation, dedicated teams and outsourcing

Request staff augmentation

Need extra hands on your software project? Our developers can jump in at any stage - from architecture to auditing - and integrate seamlessly with your team to fill any technical gaps.

Popular choice

Hire dedicated experts

Whether you're building from scratch or scaling fast, our engineers are ready to step in. You stay in control, and we handle the code.

Outsource your project

From first line to final audit, we handle the entire development process. We will deliver secure, production-ready software, while you can focus on your business.

187+ technologies

Technologies, tools and frameworks we use

Our engineers work with 187+ technologies across blockchain, backend, frontend, mobile and DevOps - chosen for production reliability and performance.

Our engineers work with 187+ technologies across 10 categories: Frameworks, AI, Blockchains, DevOps, Clouds, Databases, Brokers, Tests, Programming, UI/UX.

  • Frameworks: Spring Boot, Erlang OTP, NodeJS, Phoenix, NestJS, Django, FastAPI, Express.js, React, Next.JS, Svelte, Angular, Vue.js, Remix, Astro, Nuxt.js, iOS, Android, Flutter, React Native, Capacitors, Ionic, Swift, Kotlin, Java, Dart
  • AI: OpenAI GPT, Anthropic Claude, Google Gemini, Meta Llama, Mistral AI, Cohere, Ollama, xAI Grok, LangChain, LangGraph, CrewAI, AutoGen, Hugging Face, PyTorch, TensorFlow, scikit-learn, LlamaIndex, Keras, XGBoost, LightGBM, OpenCV, spaCy, ONNX Runtime, Pinecone, Weaviate, Qdrant, Chroma, pgvector, Milvus, FAISS, MLflow, Weights & Biases, DVC, Kubeflow, AWS SageMaker, Azure ML, Google Vertex AI, NVIDIA Triton, Airflow, Ray Serve, vLLM, OpenAI Agents SDK, Claude MCP, Semantic Kernel, Haystack
  • Blockchains: Ethereum, TON, Corda, Tron, Hedera, Stellar, Consensys GoQuorum, Solana, Arbitrum, Binance Smart Chain (BSC), Sei, Celo, Hyperledger, MultiversX, IOTA, Polkadot, Aptos, Neo, Flow, Algorand, Avalanche, EOS, Optimism, Polygon, Cosmos, Sui, Tezos, Ontology, Fantom, NEAR Protocol, VeChain, Base, IPFS, Amazon Managed Blockchain, Amazon QLDB, IBM Blockchain, Oracle Blockchain
  • DevOps: Kubernetes, Terraform, Docker, Istio, Prometheus, Grafana, Jenkins, ArgoCD, Ansible, GitHub Actions, GitLab CI, Pulumi, Datadog, New Relic, Vault
  • Clouds: Amazon Web Services, Azure, Google Cloud, Cloudflare, Vercel, DigitalOcean
  • Databases: PostgreSQL, MySQL MariaDB, Redis, Cassandra, Neo4J, MongoDB, Elasticsearch, Solr, Ignite, ClickHouse, TimescaleDB, DynamoDB, Supabase, CockroachDB, ScyllaDB
  • Brokers: Kafka, RabbitMQ, Flink, Apache Pulsar, Amazon SQS, Amazon SNS, NATS
  • Tests: Postman, Appium, Cucumber, Selenium, JMeter, Cypress
  • Programming: Solidity, FunC, Rust, GoLang, Elixir, Erlang, C++, Java, JavaScript, TypeScript, Scala, Python, C#, .NET, PHP, Ruby, Dart, SQL
  • UI/UX: Figma, Zeplin, InVision, Sketch, Miro, Marvel, Balsamiq, Photoshop, Illustrator, XD, After Effects, Corel Draw

Frameworks

Backend Frameworks 8

Spring Boot
Spring Boot
Erlang OTP
Erlang OTP
NodeJS
NodeJS
Phoenix
Phoenix
NestJS
NestJS
Django
FastAPI
Express.js

Front End Frameworks 8

React
React
Next.JS
Next.JS
Svelte
Svelte
Angular
Angular
Vue.js
Remix
Astro
Nuxt.js

Mobile Apps Frameworks 10

iOS
iOS
Android
Android
Flutter
Flutter
React Native
React Native
Capacitors
Capacitors
Ionic
Ionic
Swift
Swift
Kotlin
Kotlin
Java
Java
Dart
Trusted & Certified

Partnerships and awards

Recognized on Clutch, GoodFirms and The Manifest for software engineering excellence

  • Partner1
  • Partner2
  • Partner3
  • Partner4
  • Partner5
19+ industry awards

An approach to the development cycle

The Pharos Delivery Framework divides every project into 2-week sprints. After each sprint we hold a retrospective, deliver a progress report and plan the next sprint. This methodology is why agile projects are 3x more likely to succeed than waterfall (Standish Group CHAOS Report, 2024).

  1. Team Assembly

    Our company starts and assembles an entire project specialists with the perfect blend of skills and experience to start the work.

  2. MVP

    We'll design, build and launch your MVP, ensuring it meets the core requirements of your software solution.

  3. Production

    We'll create a complete software solution that is custom-made to meet your exact specifications.

  4. Ongoing

    Continuous Support

    Our company will be right there with you, keeping your software solution running smoothly, fixing issues and rolling out updates.

Integration engineering insights

View all articles
Skip glossary

Software Integration Glossary 7

API Gateway
A management layer that accepts external requests, applies authentication and rate-limiting and routes traffic to the correct backend service.
ETL Pipeline
A data workflow that Extracts records from a source, Transforms them to match the target schema and Loads them into a destination system.
Message Queue
A durable buffer that decouples producers and consumers so systems exchange data asynchronously without requiring simultaneous availability.
iPaaS
Integration Platform as a Service - a cloud-hosted middleware layer such as MuleSoft or Workato that connects applications through pre-built connectors and visual flow builders.
Webhook Orchestration
A coordination layer that receives incoming HTTP event notifications, validates and routes them and manages retries for failed deliveries.
Dead-Letter Queue
A secondary queue that stores messages that failed processing after maximum retry attempts so they can be inspected and reprocessed without data loss.
Idempotency
The property of an operation that produces the same result whether executed once or multiple times, preventing duplicate records during retry scenarios.

Frequently asked questions about Software Integration Services

Last updated:

  • Copy link Copies a direct link to this answer to your clipboard.

    Pharos connects ERP platforms, CRMs, payment gateways, data warehouses, cloud services, legacy databases and third-party SaaS tools. We design REST and GraphQL API layers, build middleware pipelines using MuleSoft or Workato and set up event-driven architectures with Kafka, RabbitMQ or AWS SQS to keep data flowing reliably across your entire stack.

  • Copy link Copies a direct link to this answer to your clipboard.

    Real-time sync uses event-driven messaging via Kafka or RabbitMQ so changes propagate in milliseconds without polling. For webhook-heavy integrations we build orchestration layers that handle retries, deduplication and ordering guarantees.

    Where sub-second latency is not required, scheduled ETL jobs with idempotent transformations keep systems consistent at lower infrastructure cost.

  • Copy link Copies a direct link to this answer to your clipboard.

    A point-to-point REST API integration between two modern SaaS platforms typically completes in 3 to 6 weeks. A multi-system middleware architecture connecting 5 or more legacy and cloud platforms runs 2 to 5 months, including ETL mapping, error handling, monitoring setup and UAT.

    We deliver a phased roadmap after the discovery workshop so timelines are transparent.

  • Copy link Copies a direct link to this answer to your clipboard.

    Yes. Pharos engineers hold hands-on MuleSoft and Workato experience and can build on your existing iPaaS licenses rather than replacing them. We design reusable API connectors, configure flow orchestration and set up governance policies. If you do not yet have an iPaaS, we recommend the right platform based on your system count, data volume and team's operational skills.

  • Copy link Copies a direct link to this answer to your clipboard.

    We apply schema validation at every ingestion boundary, run reconciliation queries comparing source and destination record counts and use checksums on payload fields to catch silent corruption. Rollback procedures are defined before go-live.

    For financial or compliance-sensitive data, we add audit-log tables that capture every transformation applied to each record.

  • Copy link Copies a direct link to this answer to your clipboard.

    Post-launch monitoring covers message-queue lag, API error rates, sync latency and dead-letter queue accumulation. We configure dashboards in Grafana or Datadog and set alerting thresholds so your team is notified before silent failures affect downstream systems. Runbook documentation is delivered alongside monitoring setup to enable first-line triage without Pharos involvement.

  • Copy link Copies a direct link to this answer to your clipboard.

    Yes. Pharos builds middleware that bridges on-chain event streams with ERP, CRM and analytics platforms.

    Smart contract events are indexed via The Graph or custom listeners, transformed into enterprise-friendly formats and pushed into your existing systems via REST or message-queue channels. This enables traditional finance and operations teams to work with on-chain data without learning Web3 tooling.

The Pharos takeaway on software integration

Integration work is where architectural debt compounds fastest and fails most quietly. Contracts, observability and graceful degradation are not optional add-ons; they are the primary deliverables. Pharos ships integration programs with schema registries, circuit breakers, idempotency and DORA-style delivery metrics wired in at week one rather than retrofitted after the first incident.[1]

Book a 30-minute integration architecture call
Dmytro Nasyrov, Founder and CTO at Pharos Production
Dmytro Nasyrov Founder & CTO Let's work together!

Your business results matter

Achieve them with minimized risk through our bespoke innovation capabilities

Your contact details
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Please enter your message
* required

We typically reply within 4 hours. Prefer email? [email protected]

What happens next?

  1. Contact us

    Contact us today to discuss your project. We're ready to review your request promptly and guide you on the best next steps for collaboration

    Same day

  2. NDA

    We're committed to keeping your information confidential, so we'll sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement

    1 day

  3. Plan the Goals

    After we chat about your goals and needs, we'll craft a comprehensive proposal detailing the project scope, team, timeline and budget

    3-5 days

  4. Finalize the Details

    Let's connect on Google Meet to go through the proposal and confirm all the details together!

    1-2 days

  5. Sign the Contract

    As soon as the contract is signed, our dedicated team will jump into action on your project!

    Same day

Our offices

Headquarters in Las Vegas, Nevada. Engineering office in Kyiv, Ukraine.

We also work with clients through dedicated local teams in Las Vegas, New York and San Francisco.

Las Vegas, United States

Headquarters PT
5348 Vegas Dr, Las Vegas, Nevada 89108, United States

Kyiv, Ukraine

Engineering office EET (UTC+2)
44-B Eugene Konovalets Str. Suite 201, Kyiv 01133, Ukraine

Let's work together!

Leave a request and we will contact you as soon as possible

Contact form for Pharos Production. Submit your name, email and message to reach our team directly. Free consultation, no commitment.

Your contact details
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Please enter your message
* required

We typically reply within 4 hours. Prefer email? [email protected]