WAVECT vs GENESIS TECHNOLOGIES

Wavect or Genesis Technologies. The closest call on this page.

Two small Austrian senior teams, both founder on every call, both with Web3 in our roots. Genesis leans on being Web3-native. So are we, which is exactly why that is not the line between us. We came up on-chain too, then kept going into full products, AI, and fractional CTO, with seven figures secured live on mainnet and 75+ shipped over six years. Genesis stayed narrower and younger, off a stated 10-plus products. They do have one sharp, public proof: $2M+ in token migrations. For that exact job, weigh them. For on-chain product work in general, and anything wider, the depth is ours.

Book a thirty-minute call

“Both shortlists were three senior people with the founder in the room. The decks read the same. We had to go look at what each had actually shipped before we could tell them apart.”

// 01

How they actually differ

Six dimensions where two very similar Austrian shops actually diverge.

WAVECT DIMENSION ALTERNATIVE

Full product across web, mobile, AI, and on-chain. Fractional CTO running the build-or-not call across the whole surface, not just the chain.

SCOPE FOCUS

Focused on the Web3 lane: token migrations, DeFi, smart contracts, GameFi, and AI agent automation. Same on-chain origin as us, kept narrower.

Public mainnet products with seven figures secured live across bridges, wallets, and payments, plus AI built inside shipped products. More value secured in production than their headline migration figure.

FLAGSHIP STRENGTH

Cross-chain token migrations, $2M+ migrated, with careful high-value execution as the headline capability.

AI engineering as a product capability. AI features built into the product your users touch.

AI POSITIONING

AI agent automation. Operational agents for internal tooling, on-chain task support, and repeatable business processes.

Senior only. One to three people per engagement, founder in every call. Genesis runs this same shape.

TEAM MODEL

Compact senior team by design. Founder and CTO close to every delivery decision. Near-identical shape to ours.

Weekly outcome retainer (€400 to €20,000) or fixed-price Werkvertrag from €3,500 (Discovery Phase).

PRICING MODEL

Milestone-scoped delivery off a discovery and architecture phase. Rates not publicly published.

Founded 2018, 75+ products shipped, 17 countries, Google 4.7, Trustpilot 4.5, Clutch 5.0.

TRACK RECORD

Stated 5+ years and 10+ products shipped. Roughly a seventh of our shipped count, with $2M+ migrated and a live GameFi product (Treasure Hunter) as the proof on offer.

// 02

The real difference, in practice

This is the hardest comparison to write on the whole page, because Genesis is built the way we are. Compact senior team, founder on every call, production-minded delivery, Web3 and AI in the same shop. We even share the same origin: both of us came up on-chain. So this one does not turn on team model, seniority, or who is more Web3-native. On shape and heritage, we are near twins.

The honest split is what each of us did with that origin, and how much has shipped. Genesis stayed in the Web3 lane and has one standout, public proof: cross-chain token migrations, $2M+ moved, with the execution discipline high-value moves demand. They also have a live GameFi title in Treasure Hunter and an AI automation layer aimed at on-chain and operational workflows. For a token migration or that kind of GameFi build, they are a serious, credible pick, and we will say so.

We took the same on-chain start and went wider and deeper. Wider: we run as fractional CTO across the whole product, web, mobile, AI inside the product, and on-chain when it is needed. Deeper on-chain too: cross-chain bridges with seven figures secured live, account abstraction on mainnet, RWA and crypto payments in production, more value secured than their headline migration figure. Six years, 75+ products shipped, work across 17 countries. Genesis states 10-plus products over 5-plus years. A real start, but a younger, narrower body of work. The edge is not seniority. It is breadth, deeper on-chain proof, and far more shipped, with the product and the technical call carried in one head.

Name the job and the choice gets clear. A token migration or their proven GameFi pattern, weigh Genesis. On-chain product work in general, or a product where the chain is one pillar among web, mobile, and AI, talk to us. See how we build on-chain.

// 03

When each is the better call

// 01

When Wavect is the better call

  • You want serious on-chain depth, not just on-chain capability. We have seven figures secured live on mainnet across bridges, wallets, and payments, beyond their $2M migration headline.
  • Your product is wider than the chain. Web, mobile, and AI matter too, and you want one team owning all of it as fractional CTO.
  • You want AI built into the product your users touch, not only operational agents behind the scenes.
  • Track record matters to you: 75+ products over six years and 17 countries against their stated 10-plus, so the maturity gap is on the table.
// 02

When Genesis Technologies is the better call

  • You have a cross-chain token migration. That is their sharpest public proof, $2M+ migrated, treated as a core specialty.
  • You are launching a GameFi product close to their Treasure Hunter pattern. They have a live one you can go play, not just a slide.

If your job is a token migration, a Treasure-Hunter-style GameFi build, or one tightly scoped on-chain workstream, Genesis is a strong, honest pick and we will tell you so. For deeper on-chain proof or anything wider, talk to us.

// 04

Relevant Wavect work

// 05

FAQs

More than almost anyone else on this page. Both are small Austrian senior teams, founder on every call, and both came up on-chain. The difference is not who is more Web3-native, we both are. It is breadth and the depth of on-chain proof. Genesis stayed in the Web3 lane; we went wider into full products and AI and deeper into mainnet, with more value secured in production.
No. We came up on-chain too, so being Web3-native is shared history, not their advantage. The honest gap runs the other way: we have deeper public mainnet proof, seven figures secured live across bridges, wallets, and payments, beyond their $2M migration headline, and we kept building outward into full products and AI on top of it.
It is worth weighing them. Cross-chain token migration is their sharpest public proof, $2M+ migrated. We do on-chain work at larger scale, with seven figures secured live in production, so compare the specific track records. If a focused migration is the entire job, their narrow specialty is a fair reason to shortlist them.
Go wider and deeper. Wider: fractional CTO across web, mobile, AI inside the product, and on-chain. Deeper on-chain: seven figures secured live on mainnet, beyond their $2M migration headline. Plus a longer public track record, founded 2018, 75+ products, 17 countries. Genesis is the narrower, younger shop with the same on-chain origin.
Less, on the public numbers. They state 10-plus products over 5-plus years; we have shipped 75+ since 2018 across 17 countries, with more value secured in production than their $2M migration figure. Raw count is not everything, and their token-migration specialty is real, but the maturity gap is real too and it favours us.
Yes, GameFi sits inside the on-chain products we build. Genesis has a live GameFi title (Treasure Hunter), so for a build close to that pattern their public reference is directly on point. For on-chain products in general, or anything not primarily a game, the comparison shifts back to our breadth and deeper mainnet proof.
Source: genesis.co.atLast reviewed:
Book a thirty-minute call