Comparison
Same MVP. One invoice has an extra zero.
Traditional agencies aren't dishonest — their model is just built for a world where software took 1,000 hours to write. AI-assisted development collapsed the hours. Agencies that kept hourly billing kept the old prices; AI-first shops pass the difference on. That's the whole story, and it's why the market is splitting into tiers.
| Traditional agency | AI First Development | |
|---|---|---|
| Typical MVP price | $20,000–$120,000 | $4,995–$25,000, fixed & published |
| Timeline | 3–5 months | 1–3 weeks (larger builds 4–8) |
| Billing model | Hourly / retainers; scope creep is revenue | Fixed price; scope creep is our risk |
| Who writes the code | 400–1,000 developer-hours | Claude Code writes volume; seniors direct & review |
| Visibility | Weekly status meetings | Your repo, daily pushes, deployed previews |
| Team size you pay for | PM + designers + devs + QA | Senior engineers with AI leverage |
| Where they win | Compliance, enterprise process, on-site teams | Speed to market, price certainty |
A traditional agency wins when…
- You need SOC 2 / HIPAA-grade compliance processes from day one
- The engagement is a 6–12 month staffed program
- You want an embedded on-site team
- Procurement requires a 50-person vendor
AI-first wins when…
- You need to be in front of users this quarter, not next year
- The budget is real and needs to be known upfront
- You want to see progress daily, not in status decks
- "Senior review + AI speed" beats "large team + long process"
The important question for any agency in 2026 — including us — is: "what exactly does the AI do, and what do humans review?" An agency that can't answer is either not using AI (you're overpaying) or using it unreviewed (you're the QA team). Our answer is public.
Get a second quote in 24 hours.
Already have an agency proposal? Book the free call — our written fixed-price scope makes a useful benchmark even if you don't hire us.
Book a free scoping call