Compare

Reveneau vs hiring your own engineers

Hiring engineers buys capability that stays with you. Engaging a build partner buys a result on a date. The comparison people usually run is salary against invoice, which is the least useful version of it: the numbers that decide this are how long it takes to hire, what the team does after the launch, and whether you have someone senior enough to direct engineers once they arrive.

Facts about hiring in-house last checked 2026-08-21

Hiring is the right answer when the software is your product and will keep changing forever.
The cost that gets missed is time to first line of code, not salary.
A team you hire for one launch becomes a team you must keep busy afterwards.
Hiring without senior technical leadership already in place usually goes badly.
The two combine well: a partner builds v1 while you hire the team that takes it over.

Where hiring in-house is the right answer

Written first, and deliberately. If we could not fill this section honestly, the page would not be worth publishing.

What hiring in-house is good at

The capability stays with you permanently, and keeps growing
Context accumulates: a year in, your engineers know things no external team will
No separation between teams, no contract, no scope negotiation over small changes
Cheaper per unit of work over a long enough time
Full control over priorities, day to day, without renegotiating anything

Choose them over us when

Software is your product and will need continuous change for years
You already have senior technical leadership who can hire and direct well
The work is steady and open-ended rather than a defined build
You are funded for several years and can pay for the time new hires need to become productive
Domain knowledge is the hard part and only builds up inside your company

Side by side

Every cell about hiring in-house is labelled with where it came from. Nothing here is inferred, and a blank is left blank.

	Reveneau	Hiring in-house
Time to first line of code	Weeks, after the specification is agreed	Typically months, including notice periodsTheir claim
What you own afterwards	Specification, eval suite, decision record, and runbook	The team and everything they knowVerified
Cost structure	A scoped project cost with an end	Ongoing salary, benefits, equipment, managementVerified
After the launch	The engagement ends or moves to support	You must keep the team occupiedVerified
Domain knowledge	Transferred in the specification and decision record	Accumulates permanently in your peopleVerified
Needs senior leadership in place	No, we bring the direction	Yes, or the hires underperformVerified

The version of this comparison that compares a salary to an invoice is not worth reading. Here are the three numbers that actually decide it.

Time to first line of code

A hire is not productive on their start date. There is a search, a notice period that is often three months, and then a learning period before they know your system well enough to change it safely. Six months from decision to real output is unremarkable, and that is when hiring goes well.

If you have a date that someone external has committed to, that timeline is the whole answer, and no comparison of hourly rates changes it.

What happens after launch

This is the one that gets missed, and it is the more expensive mistake.

A team hired to build a thing is still on payroll after the thing is built. If the work that follows is smaller than the work that preceded it, you now have a capacity problem that resolves either through invented work or through redundancy. Both are bad, and the second is genuinely awful for everyone involved.

A build engagement ends. That is a real advantage when the work has an end, and a real disadvantage when it does not, because the knowledge leaves with it. Which is why the handover artefacts matter so much, and why can your team maintain AI-written software is worth reading before you sign anything with anyone.

Whether you can direct engineers

Hiring good engineers without senior technical leadership already in place tends to disappoint, and it is rarely the engineers' fault. Someone has to decide architecture, set the quality standard, review work, and say no. Without that, a team of capable people produces a system nobody owns.

If you do not have that person yet, hiring first is the harder option. Either hire that person first, or buy a build from someone who brings the direction with it.

Where hiring wins outright

If the software is your product, it will change forever, and you are funded for years, hire. The capability compounds, the context accumulates, and no external arrangement matches a team that has worked in your system for two years.

That is not a grudging concession. It is the correct answer for most product companies past a certain stage, and if that describes you, the honest recommendation is to hire and to use outside help only for short periods of extra work and for specialist skills.

The combination that usually works best

The common sensible arrangement is not either-or. It is a partner building v1 against a real deadline while you recruit without panic, then a deliberate handover into the team you hired. You get the date, and you get the permanent capability, and the recruitment is not rushed into bad decisions by a launch that is running late.

Where we fit

Reveneau suits this when

There is a date, and hiring cannot deliver by it
The build is defined and has an end
You want the v1 built properly while you hire the team to own it
You do not yet have the senior leadership to direct new engineers

Common questions

Is it cheaper to hire developers or use a development firm?

Over a long enough time, hiring is cheaper per unit of work. Over a defined build with an end date, it usually is not, because you are paying for the search, the notice period, and the learning period before any code exists, and paying for the team afterwards whether or not there is work.

How long does hiring actually take?

Plan for the search plus a notice period that is often three months plus a learning period before someone can safely change your system. Six months from decision to real output is normal when it goes well, which is the number that matters if you have an external commitment.

What happens to a team hired for one build?

They stay on payroll. If the work after launch is smaller than the work before it, you have a capacity problem that resolves through invented work or redundancy. This is the cost most often left out of the comparison and the most painful to fix.

Can I do both?

That is usually the best arrangement. A partner builds v1 against the deadline while you recruit without pressure, then hands over deliberately to the team you hired. You get the date and the permanent capability, and hiring decisions are not rushed by a launch that is running late.

Should I hire if I have no technical leadership yet?

It is the harder option. Someone has to set architecture and the quality standard, review work, and say no, or a team of capable people produces a system nobody actually owns and nobody can point to as correctly built. Either hire that senior person first so new engineers have direction from the first day, or buy a build from a partner who brings that direction with the engagement itself.

When does hiring in-house clearly beat a build partner?

Hiring wins outright when the software is your product, it will need continuous change for years, and you are funded for that period. The capability keeps growing and the context accumulates in a way no external arrangement matches once a team has worked in your system for two years, which is the correct answer for most product companies past a certain stage.

What happens to Reveneau's engagement after launch?

The engagement ends or moves to a support arrangement, rather than staying on payroll regardless of whether there is enough work left. Domain knowledge is transferred through the specification and the decision record instead of accumulating only in people's memory, so what you own afterwards does not depend on any one person staying.

How fast can Reveneau start compared to hiring?

Reveneau can have people contributing within weeks once a specification is agreed, against a hiring timeline that typically runs months once a notice period and learning period are counted. That gap is the whole answer when there is a real external date to meet, since no comparison of hourly rates changes a deadline that hiring cannot reach in time.