Punch Through vs Cardinal Peak: full comparison for 2026
Quick verdict
Punch Through (4.3/5) edges ahead of Cardinal Peak (4.2/5) overall. Punch Through is the better choice for bluetooth LE products with companion mobile apps. Cardinal Peak is the stronger option for US consumer and media devices needing onshore engineers. The right choice depends on your project size, budget, and required tech stack.
Punch Through vs Cardinal Peak: head-to-head summary
| Criterion | Punch Through | Cardinal Peak |
|---|---|---|
| Founded | 2009 | 2002 |
| HQ | Minneapolis–Saint Paul, MN, USA | Lafayette, Colorado, USA |
| Team size | 11–50 | 51–200 |
| Rating | 4.3 / 5 | 4.2 / 5 |
| Primary differentiator | Bluetooth LE firmware and mobile apps built by the same team, with deep radio-level debugging experience | US-based device engineering with audio and video depth, now backed by FPT |
| Pricing model | Time & materials, fixed project | Time & materials, fixed project |
| Min. engagement | Not disclosed | Not disclosed |
| Primary tech stack | C, Zephyr, FreeRTOS | C, C++, Embedded Linux |
| Industries served | Medical devices, Consumer electronics | Consumer electronics, Telecom & broadcast, Medical devices |
Punch Through vs Cardinal Peak: overview
Punch Through
Few firms go as deep on Bluetooth LE as Punch Through. The Minnesota company was founded in 2009 by Colin Karpfinger and employs somewhere between 11 and 50 people according to directory listings. It builds connected products where the radio link is the hard part: device firmware on Nordic, Silicon Labs and TI chips, plus the iOS and Android apps that pair with them. Its public guides on BLE throughput, pairing and power use are widely read by embedded engineers. A large share of its client work is medical and consumer health devices.
Cardinal Peak
Cardinal Peak has built connected devices out of Lafayette, Colorado since 2002, covering electrical design, embedded firmware, cloud back ends and mobile apps. Its longest-running specialities are audio, video and connected home products. FPT Corporation, the Vietnamese IT group, acquired it in November 2023, adding about 100 experts and a US office to FPT's North American business; Cardinal Peak now describes itself as a wholly owned FPT subsidiary. The acquisition gives it access to FPT's offshore capacity for larger programmes.
Services and capabilities: Punch Through vs Cardinal Peak
| Capability | Punch Through | Cardinal Peak |
|---|---|---|
| Bare-metal & RTOS firmware | ✓ | ✓ |
| Embedded Linux & BSP | ✗ | ✓ |
| Electronics & PCB design | ✗ | ✓ |
| Wireless & IoT connectivity | ✓ | ✓ |
| Secure boot & OTA | ✗ | ✗ |
| FPGA development | ✗ | ✗ |
| Firmware testing & HIL | ✓ | ✗ |
| Dedicated team model | ✗ | ✗ |
Tech stack comparison: Punch Through vs Cardinal Peak
| Framework / platform | Punch Through | Cardinal Peak |
|---|---|---|
| FreeRTOS | ✓ | ✓ |
| Zephyr | ✓ | N/A |
| Embedded Linux | N/A | ✓ |
| Yocto | N/A | N/A |
| AUTOSAR | N/A | N/A |
| STM32 | N/A | N/A |
| Nordic | ✓ | N/A |
| NXP | N/A | ✓ |
| FPGA | N/A | N/A |
Pricing comparison: Punch Through vs Cardinal Peak
| Criterion | Punch Through | Cardinal Peak |
|---|---|---|
| Minimum engagement | Not disclosed | Not disclosed |
| Engagement models | Consulting, Fixed project, Time & materials | Fixed project, Time & materials |
| Rate transparency | Not public | Not public |
| Price tier | Mid-market | Mid-market |
Target audience comparison: Punch Through vs Cardinal Peak
| Dimension | Punch Through | Cardinal Peak |
|---|---|---|
| Best company size | Startup to mid-market | Startup to mid-market |
| Best industries | Medical devices, Consumer electronics | Consumer electronics, Telecom & broadcast, Medical devices |
| Best use cases | Fixing dropped connections between a BLE wearable and its iOS app, Building firmware and a companion app for a connected glucose or heart-rate device | Building firmware for a smart speaker or video doorbell, Delivering a connected device with firmware, cloud and app from one US vendor |
| Typical project type | Consulting | Fixed project |
Punch Through vs Cardinal Peak: pros and cons
| Punch Through | |
|---|---|
| + | Firmware and mobile apps from one team removes the usual finger-pointing over BLE connection bugs |
| + | Published technical guides show real depth in BLE throughput, pairing and power optimization |
| + | Experience with connected medical products and their data-integrity requirements |
| - | Narrow focus on Bluetooth LE makes it a weaker fit for cellular, wired or Linux-class products |
| - | Small team, so availability can be limited |
| - | US rates are among the higher ones on this list |
| Cardinal Peak | |
|---|---|
| + | Onshore US engineers for clients who need them for IP or export-control reasons |
| + | Audio and video streaming firmware is a long-standing strength |
| + | FPT ownership adds offshore capacity when a programme grows |
| - | Acquired by FPT in 2023, so check how much of a project will be staffed from the US versus offshore |
| - | US rates make small firmware fixes relatively expensive |
| - | Firmware is one part of a broader product-engineering offer |
Who should choose Punch Through?
A typical fit: fixing dropped connections between a BLE wearable and its iOS app.
Bluetooth LE firmware and mobile apps built by the same team, with deep radio-level debugging experience. Minimum engagement is not publicly disclosed. Works best with clients in Medical devices, Consumer electronics.
Who should choose Cardinal Peak?
A typical fit: building firmware for a smart speaker or video doorbell.
US-based device engineering with audio and video depth, now backed by FPT. Minimum engagement is not publicly disclosed. Works best with clients in Consumer electronics, Telecom & broadcast, Medical devices.
Decision matrix: Punch Through vs Cardinal Peak
| Your situation | Recommended choice |
|---|---|
| You need full-ownership delivery on a defined project scope | Punch Through |
| You need a large dedicated team for an ongoing programme | Check each company's engagement model |
| Your budget is at the lower end | Compare: Punch Through (Not disclosed) vs Cardinal Peak (Not disclosed) |
| You need specialist depth in a specific vertical | Cardinal Peak |
| You need engineers to extend your own firmware team | Neither lists a dedicated-team model |
| You need consulting before committing to a build | Both may offer discovery engagements |
Use case fit: Punch Through vs Cardinal Peak
| Use case | Punch Through fit | Cardinal Peak fit | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fixing dropped connections between a BLE wearable and its iOS app | Strong | Limited | Punch Through |
| Building firmware and a companion app for a connected glucose or heart-rate device | Strong | Limited | Punch Through |
| Building firmware for a smart speaker or video doorbell | Limited | Strong | Cardinal Peak |
| Delivering a connected device with firmware, cloud and app from one US vendor | Limited | Strong | Cardinal Peak |
| Fixed-price firmware build | Strong | Strong | Both |
| Extending an in-house firmware team | Strong | Strong | Both |
Verdict: Punch Through vs Cardinal Peak
Punch Through (4.3/5) is the stronger overall choice for most Firmware Development projects. Bluetooth LE firmware and mobile apps built by the same team, with deep radio-level debugging experience.
Cardinal Peak (4.2/5) is worth a look if you need delivering a connected device with firmware, cloud and app from one US vendor. If your situation matches that, Cardinal Peak is a competitive option.
Related comparisons
Punch Through vs Cardinal Peak FAQ
Is Punch Through better than Cardinal Peak?
Punch Through (4.3/5) scores higher overall, but "better" depends on your use case. Punch Through's strongest advantage: firmware and mobile apps from one team removes the usual finger-pointing over BLE connection bugs. Cardinal Peak's strongest advantage: onshore US engineers for clients who need them for IP or export-control reasons.
How do Punch Through and Cardinal Peak differ in pricing?
Punch Through uses time & materials, fixed project pricing. Cardinal Peak uses time & materials, fixed project pricing. Neither firm publishes a full rate card; a discovery call is required for project-specific quotes.
Which is better for enterprise: Punch Through or Cardinal Peak?
Cardinal Peak is the larger team and typically the better enterprise-scale choice. For very large programmes, verify team size and compliance coverage directly with each service provider before shortlisting.
What are the main differences between Punch Through and Cardinal Peak?
Punch Through's primary differentiator is: bluetooth LE firmware and mobile apps built by the same team, with deep radio-level debugging experience. Cardinal Peak's primary differentiator is: US-based device engineering with audio and video depth, now backed by FPT. They also differ in team size (11–50 vs 51–200), minimum engagement (Not disclosed vs Not disclosed), and primary industries served (Medical devices, Consumer electronics vs Consumer electronics, Telecom & broadcast).
Verify all details directly with each service provider before making a decision.