Hire .NET Developers Who Can Modernize What You Already Run
Easy To Standardize, Hard To Move
.NET is where a lot of dependable business software lives, which is exactly why so much of it is hard to change. The system works, it has run for a decade, nobody remembers why one service authenticates differently to the rest, and every proposal to modernize it starts with a rewrite nobody will fund.
why choose ecomia
Why teams bring us in
The .NET work we are asked to take on is rarely greenfield. It is an application that has to keep running while it changes, in an organization where downtime has a cost attached and an auditor may ask questions later. That shapes how the work gets done more than any framework choice does.
Modernization without a stop-the-world rewrite
Workloads move incrementally while the existing system keeps serving. A rewrite that takes eighteen months and lands all at once is the riskiest plan available, not the safest.
Enterprise constraints taken seriously
Authentication, authorization, audit trails and data handling get treated as requirements from the start, because in most .NET estates somebody eventually has to evidence them.
Depth across the stack, not just C#
ASP.NET Core, Blazor, MAUI and WPF on the front, SQL Server and Entity Framework Core underneath, Azure and containers around it. Most .NET problems live at the seams between those.
Built to be handed over
Business logic lives in services rather than inside controllers, so the next developer reads code instead of doing archaeology.
Services
What we build and maintain
Most engagements combine a few of these, and the modernization work usually has to happen alongside the feature work rather than instead of it.
Applications built on ASP.NET Core, with Blazor Server or WebAssembly where a shared C# codebase across the stack earns more than it costs. Domain logic stays testable on its own rather than tangled into the request pipeline.
Existing WPF applications maintained or modernized rather than replaced on principle, and .NET MAUI where one cross-platform codebase genuinely serves both platforms instead of pleasing neither.
C# throughout, F# where a calculation-heavy domain justifies it, and VB.NET maintained and migrated rather than abandoned. Legacy code is usually running something that matters.
Schema design, indexing and query tuning, with EF Core used deliberately and raw SQL kept available for the handful of paths where an ORM is the wrong tool.
REST for external consumers, gRPC where services talk to each other at volume, and SignalR where the client genuinely needs to be told rather than to keep asking. Retries and timeouts assume the other side will go down.
Azure services where they fit, containerized builds with Docker, and pipelines through Azure DevOps or GitHub, with environment configuration and secrets kept out of the repository.
A boundary drawn around the existing system, functionality moved out piece by piece, and traffic routed to each new implementation as it proves itself. The old system shrinks instead of being switched off.
Profiling to find what is actually slow rather than what looks slow, hardening the surfaces that are exposed, and building coverage around the parts nobody currently dares to change.
Built Around Your Needs
Three ways to bring
.NET expertise onto your team
Dedicated teams
Need a team that owns the application?
A dedicated .NET team responsible for the system day to day, from feature work through to modernization and production support. Suited to applications central enough to need people who know their history.
Software outsourcing
Want a defined piece of work delivered?
We scope, build and hand over the project with documentation and tests. Suited to a new application, an integration, or a migration with an agreed scope and end point.
Staff Augmentation
Need .NET capacity inside your own team?
Our developers join your repository, your review process and your standups for a defined period. Suited to teams that own the roadmap and need hands or a specific skill for a while.
Frequently Asked Questions
Not urgently, but the direction of travel is clear: new features, performance work and library support are all happening on modern .NET. The practical answer is to move the parts that benefit, usually anything you are actively changing or that needs to run in a container, and leave stable components where they are until there is a reason. A migration without a deadline that keeps making progress is still better than a rewrite that fails.
No, and that assumption is a decade out of date. Modern .NET runs on Linux and in containers, deploys to any major cloud, and works comfortably with PostgreSQL, Redis, Kafka and the rest of the usual infrastructure. Plenty of .NET applications run entirely outside Azure. The tooling is strongest in a Microsoft environment, but nothing forces you into one.
Rarely as a whole-application decision, and often as a component one. F# is a strong fit for domains that are mostly transformation and calculation, such as pricing, financial modeling or data processing, where making invalid states impossible to represent pays off immediately. C# remains the sensible default for most application work, not least because hiring for it is far easier.
Blazor is compelling when your team is strongest in C# and the application is internal or line-of-business, because one language across the stack genuinely reduces friction. A JavaScript framework is usually the better answer for public-facing sites where initial load matters, where you need the wider ecosystem of components, or where you will need to hire frontend specialists. The deciding factor is your team more often than the technology.
Usually a small number of specific causes rather than the ORM being the wrong choice. Lazy loading turning one query into hundreds, change tracking left on for read-only queries, projections pulling whole entities when a few columns would do, and missing indexes underneath. The fix is to look at the SQL actually being generated, correct those patterns, and drop to raw SQL for the handful of paths where the ORM genuinely is not the right tool.
Yes, and it is usually the only version that finishes. The approach is to put a boundary around the existing system, move functionality out piece by piece behind that boundary, and route traffic to the new implementation as each piece proves itself. The old system shrinks rather than being switched off, and you keep shipping the whole time. It is slower on paper and considerably more likely to succeed.
No. Azure is a good fit when you are already invested in the Microsoft ecosystem and want managed services that assume .NET, but the platform runs anywhere containers run. We work with whatever you have, and if a move is worth recommending it will be for a reason we can show you rather than because it is the default answer.
For internal tools, forms-heavy applications and anything where the same team maintains both platforms, yes, and the shared codebase is a genuine saving. For consumer applications that lean on platform-specific behavior, heavy graphics or the newest device features, native still wins. The honest test is how much of your application is unique to each platform: if the answer is a lot, cross-platform is buying you less than it appears to.
Yes. Our developers work in your repository and your review process rather than in parallel and delivering a surprise. That matters more on .NET estates than most, because the context that makes these systems safe to change tends to live in people's heads rather than in documentation.
Let’s Build What’s Next
Talk to our team about your goals
Have a project in mind or a challenge you’re looking to solve? Let’s talk about how we can help you move forward.