Stack Recommender
Configure when a platform already models your workflow and your edge is not in the software itself; build when the workflow is your differentiator or no platform fits without heavy customisation. Corelynx delivers on all major stacks, so the recommender has no incentive to favour a build — one answer path tells you to configure instead.
Five questions. An honest stack direction — including "don't build."
Every agency recommends the stack they staff. We deliver on all of them, so this tool can afford to be honest — one answer path even tells you to configure a platform instead of hiring us to build.
Five questions, because the sixth rarely changes the answer.
What you are building
A customer-facing product carries different constraints from an internal operations tool: authentication, scale, and the cost of a bad day are all different. This is the question that most often decides the answer on its own.
Where your team is strongest
The best stack for a team that already ships confidently in one language is usually that language. A technically superior stack nobody on the team knows is a hiring plan disguised as an architecture decision.
Realistic year-one scale
Under a thousand users, almost any competent stack works and optimising for scale wastes budget. Above fifty thousand, choices that were free become expensive to reverse.
Compliance sensitivity
Regulated data changes the answer more than any other single input. It constrains hosting, logging, vendor selection and the review process, and it is the constraint most often discovered late.
What wins a tie
Ship fastest, balance, or long-term control. There is no universally correct answer, and the useful thing is stating yours out loud before the decision rather than after.
What this tool does, and what it does not.
Yes, and it is the reason the tool exists. One answer path recommends configuring an existing platform instead of commissioning a build. We deliver on all the major platforms, so that recommendation costs us the build and we make it regularly. An agency that only builds cannot honestly give you that answer.
It is a direction, not an architecture. It reliably narrows the field and rules out the obviously wrong choices, which is most of the value of an early conversation. What it cannot do is weigh your existing contracts, your team's history with a vendor, or the constraint nobody wrote down — those need a person.
No. The result appears immediately and nothing is gated. If the recommendation is useful and you want it pressure-tested against your actual situation, the contact route is there, but the tool works without it.
Then the useful question is whether the choice survives scrutiny, not whether a tool agrees. An architecture sprint — one week, fixed fee — reviews the decision and documents the rationale so it survives personnel changes. Roughly half the time it confirms the existing choice, which is a legitimate outcome worth having in writing.
It cannot, because we staff all of them. That is the specific reason we can publish this tool: an agency with one delivery capability has a commercial incentive in every answer, and no amount of methodology removes it.
Ready to talk specifics?
The first conversation is about context and fit — nothing more.
Book a Strategy Session →Explore the practice areas.
See how Corelynx structures engagements across each solution.
Browse Solutions →