Framework Expertise
Specialist pages for ASP.NET Zero, ABP.IO, Angular and ASP.NET Core.
ASP.NET Core Expertise
Design, build, modernise and maintain ASP.NET Core applications — the APIs, services and web applications that business software depends on.
Platform Expertise
ASP.NET Core is where most .NET application work ends up: the host that serves the front end, the API that the front end calls, the service that talks to the database and to everything else. Because it sits in the middle of the system, it is also where architectural decisions become expensive to undo.
Our ASP.NET Core work is mostly one of three things: building a new application on it, moving an existing .NET application forward, or taking over the continued development of one already in production. All three need the same judgement — keeping the application understandable to the people who will maintain it after this phase of work ends.
We are an independent software development practice. We are not a Microsoft partner and make no claims about certifications or awards; what we offer is commercial experience shipping and maintaining ASP.NET Core applications for organisations that depend on them.
Four specialist areas for organisations building, modernising or maintaining applications on ASP.NET Core.
New business applications, backend services and APIs designed around the problem they have to solve rather than a template.
Development starts with the shape of the application: its boundaries, the data it owns, which parts need to stay decoupled, how it will be authenticated, how it will be deployed and how the team will test it. Those decisions are cheap at the start and expensive later, so they get made deliberately and recorded.
Typical builds include internal business systems, customer-facing portals, integrations between platforms, document and workflow applications and backends for Angular or other front ends.
For applications built on an older .NET platform, or on an ASP.NET Core version that has fallen behind.
This is assessment-led work with two distinct shapes, and they are often confused. A version upgrade moves an application forward on the same architecture: framework and package versions, breaking changes, target frameworks, build and deployment configuration. A modernisation changes the architecture: extracting logic from a monolithic codebase, replacing ageing data access, introducing an API layer a new front end can use, or moving work out of a blocking request thread.
Moving from .NET Framework to ASP.NET Core usually sits between the two: the target is the platform, the work is architectural. Legacy dependencies, Windows-authentication assumptions, Web Forms or WCF components and integrations that assume the old hosting model each need their own decision. We plan in stages so the application keeps working while it moves, rather than freezing feature work for a rewrite.
Ongoing engineering attention for ASP.NET Core applications already running in production.
This suits organisations whose application works but keeps needing someone: bugs investigated properly, security and framework patches applied on a schedule rather than in a panic, integrations maintained when the system on the other side changes, and the backlog continued by people who know the codebase.
Support arrangements are agreed per application, based on its size, how much it changes and how quickly problems need to be answered. The review of what that should look like is a short conversation, not a procurement exercise.
Add ASP.NET Core engineering capacity to an existing project or team.
This works when the capability is the constraint rather than the direction: an upgrade that needs full-time attention, a backlog of API and service work your team cannot absorb this quarter, or a backend that needs ongoing development alongside your own developers.
Engineers work in your repository, follow your review and release process and stay for as long as the work requires. Engagement details are agreed per project.
The same sequence whether the work is a new service, a platform upgrade or years of continued development — the difference is scope, not method.
Review the application, its versions, dependencies, integrations and the business functionality that must survive the work.
Agree what actually needs to change, and what is better left alone because it is doing its job.
Implement in increments that can be reviewed and released, with the tests and documentation the change needs.
Check behaviour on real flows and data, not only that the project compiles.
Deploy through an approach suited to the application, with a defined way back if it goes wrong.
Continue development, patching and improvement once the application is live.
Most ASP.NET Core applications we inherit are not slow because of a missing cache or slow because of a bad framework choice. They are slow because the shape of the system no longer matches how it is used: one table queried from eleven screens, an endpoint that loads a graph nobody reads, work that used to run nightly now running inside a customer request.
Improving that starts with measurement on realistic data and flows, then a change that addresses the actual cause. In practice the useful fixes are unglamorous — query shape, what gets tracked, where the boundaries between modules sit, how much the configuration is doing at startup, whether background work belongs in a service at all.
The same is true of architecture reviews. A review that produces a diagram and no decisions is decoration. Ours produces a short list of changes worth making, in the order that keeps the application usable while they are made.
The packages, hosting model and front-end technology differ between applications. What matters for a project is what your application actually uses today, which we establish before proposing work.
ASP.NET Core and Angular appear together in a large share of the applications we work on, usually with the front end as a separate buildable application talking to a Core API.
That split is where projects stall if it is not handled deliberately: contract changes between the two, authentication flows that cross the boundary, CORS and proxying in development, and version upgrades that only ever get done on one side.
Front-end work is covered in depth on the Angular expertise page, and the two are frequently planned together.
ASP.NET Zero and ABP.IO are application frameworks built on ASP.NET Core. Working on one of them means working on the platform, but not the whole platform: the framework brings modules, conventions and generated infrastructure that a plain ASP.NET Core application does not have.
That distinction matters in both directions. Framework applications can be upgraded without leaving the framework, and moving away from one is an architectural project rather than a version change.
If your application is built on one of them, the ASP.NET Zero and ABP.IO pages describe how that work is approached.
Situations where bringing in platform-specific help tends to be worthwhile.
Specialist pages for ASP.NET Zero, ABP.IO, Angular and ASP.NET Core.
Upgrades, migration and improvement of existing applications.
APIs, data movement and connections between business platforms.
Front-end version upgrades, modernisation and continued development.
Add ASP.NET Core engineering capacity to your existing team.
Whether you're building something new, modernising an existing application or need specialist development support, let's discuss what you need.