Build vs Buy AI: Cost, Speed, and Risk for Your MVP Compared
The build vs buy question gets asked at every company that's trying to move on AI. It's often framed as a cost question. It's really a strategy question — and getting it wrong doesn't just cost money, it costs quarters.
Here's an honest breakdown from people who've been on both sides of it.
What "Build" and "Buy" Actually Mean in the AI Context
First, a clarification: almost nobody is building foundation models from scratch. When people say "build," they mean building applications on top of existing AI infrastructure (OpenAI, Anthropic, open-source models via Hugging Face, cloud ML services). The real question is whether you build your own application layer or buy a vendor product that wraps similar underlying models.
"Buy" typically means SaaS AI tools — Notion AI, Glean, Guru, Harvey, Jasper, Writer, or the dozens of vertical AI products that have emerged in the last two years.
"Build" means custom development — either in-house engineers or an external team — building a workflow tool, agent, or data product tailored to your specific use case.
There's also a hybrid option: low-code/no-code platforms (Retool, Bubble, Zapier with GPT steps, Microsoft Power Platform), which sit between the two but have their own tradeoffs.
When to Buy
Buying makes clear sense when:
The use case is generic. If you want AI-assisted writing for marketing emails, you're not going to out-compete tools that have been refined against millions of users. Buy Writer or Notion AI and move on.
Speed to first value matters more than differentiation. If the goal is "our team should spend 20% less time on X by next month," a vendor product can get you there. If the goal is "this AI capability becomes part of our product moat," it probably can't.
The vendor's data network is the value. Tools like Glean or Harvey get better because they're trained on massive corpora of enterprise data across many customers. Your in-house build can't replicate that.
Your engineering team is small and stretched. Building and maintaining a custom AI system carries ongoing operational cost. If you have three engineers and two of them are keeping the core product alive, "build" isn't actually an option — it's a fantasy.
When to Build
Building makes sense when:
The workflow involves your proprietary data in ways a vendor can't access. If your most valuable AI use case is reasoning over your internal pricing history, your customer interaction data, or your proprietary documents — and a vendor would need access to that data to serve you — you have a structural reason to build. You control what leaves your infrastructure.
Differentiation is the point. If an AI capability is part of your product offering to customers, or a genuine competitive advantage over peers, you cannot buy it off a shelf. By definition, your competitors can buy the same thing.
The vendor doesn't exist. For highly specific workflows — ESG data pipelines, compliance monitoring in a niche regulatory environment, AI-assisted underwriting for unusual risk classes — there often isn't a vendor. The build/buy choice is actually build/nothing.
Total cost of ownership over 18 months favours building. Enterprise SaaS AI tools price aggressively at the seat or usage level. A tool that costs €200/user/month across a 100-person team is €240k/year. A custom build might cost €80–120k to build and €20–30k/year to maintain. The crossover comes faster than most buyers expect.
The Real Cost Comparison
Let's put some numbers on it. These are rough but directionally honest:
| | Buy (SaaS) | Build (Custom) | |---|---|---| | Time to first value | 1–4 weeks | 2–8 weeks | | Year 1 cost (100 users) | €120k–300k | €80k–180k | | Year 2 cost | Same or higher | €20–40k maintenance | | Customisation ceiling | Low–medium | High | | Switching cost | Low at start, high after data lock-in | Low (you own it) | | Vendor risk | Pricing changes, pivots, acquisitions | Team/agency dependency |
The hidden cost that rarely appears in buy decisions: integration time. Enterprise SaaS tools rarely plug into your existing systems cleanly. The gap between "the tool works in a sandbox" and "the tool works with our ERP data in production" is typically measured in months and engineering sprints, not API keys.
The Lock-In Problem Nobody Talks About Enough
When you buy a SaaS AI tool, you're not just paying for software — you're embedding workflows, training your team, and potentially migrating data into a vendor's environment. Eighteen months later, when pricing doubles (it often does), switching costs are much higher than you anticipated at purchase.
This isn't unique to AI SaaS, but AI SaaS has an additional wrinkle: your workflow data has shaped how your team works with the tool. The prompts, templates, integrations, and tribal knowledge your team has built around Vendor X don't transfer to Vendor Y. You're not just migrating data; you're retraining people.
Custom builds sidestep this. You own the codebase. If the underlying model (OpenAI, Claude, Gemini) changes pricing or terms, you can swap it in a sprint. Your workflow logic isn't hostage to any vendor's roadmap.
The Build Failure Mode
Build isn't the answer to everything. The most common failure mode for "build" decisions is underestimating the ongoing cost.
Companies build an MVP in a hackathon or a three-week sprint, ship it internally, and then let it rot while engineers move on to other priorities. Six months later, the model API has changed, the prompts that used to work no longer do, and the tool has accumulated three bugs that nobody has fixed because there's no owner.
Custom builds need:
- A clear internal owner (not "the team that built it")
- A maintenance budget, not just a build budget
- Thoughtful handover if an external team built it
The sprint model — building tight, scoped tools with explicit handover to internal owners — is specifically designed to avoid this failure mode.
The Honest Recommendation
Buy when: the use case is generic, you need value in weeks not months, your team is small, or you're experimenting with whether AI is useful at all for a given workflow.
Build when: the use case involves proprietary data or workflows, differentiation matters, the vendor doesn't exist, or you've run the 18-month TCO math and building is cheaper.
Build faster than you think you need to: The companies treating custom AI tooling as a competitive priority are moving faster than those waiting for the right SaaS product to appear. The window to build meaningful proprietary systems is shorter than it looks.
If you're at the "should we build this?" stage and need a working prototype in two weeks to test the assumption before committing to a full build, that's exactly what our sprint model delivers. See what a sprint costs and what it delivers →
Related: Retool vs Custom AI Dashboard: Which Should You Choose?
Ready to Build?
Whether you need a quick prototype or a production-ready platform, our team ships in 3-week fixed-price sprints. Book a 15-min scope call to discuss your project.
Related Resources
Related articles:
Our solution: AI MVP Sprint — ship in 3 weeks
Browse all comparisons: Compare
Related Articles
- How We Ship AI MVPs in 3 Weeks (Without Cutting Corners) — Inside look at our sprint process from scoping to production deploy
- AI Development Cost Breakdown: What to Expect — Realistic cost breakdown for building AI features at startup speed
- Why Startups Choose an AI Agency Over Hiring — Build vs hire analysis for early-stage companies moving fast
- The $4,999 MVP Development Sprint: How It Works — Full walkthrough of our 3-week sprint model and what you get
- 7 AI MVP Mistakes Founders Make — Common pitfalls that slow down AI MVPs and how to avoid them
- 5 AI Agent Architecture Patterns That Work — Proven patterns for building reliable multi-agent AI systems