React, Next.js, Flutter, React Native, Python and AI — from the people who write the code. Fixed-scope by default because it puts the estimate risk on us, with phased blocks and hourly arrangements available when those genuinely suit you better.
All three come with the same engineer and the same ownership terms. The only difference is how the work is scoped and billed.
One agreed scope, one quote, and the risk of the estimate sits with us rather than you.
Continuous development, still at fixed cost — each phase scoped and quoted before it starts.
Available when you specifically want it — exploratory work, or an internal process that requires it.
The person who replies to your first message is the person who writes the code. No account manager translating your requirements into a ticket for someone you never meet, and no junior the work is quietly reassigned to once the contract is signed.
Whichever model you pick, everything lands in your accounts — repositories, credentials, cloud, store listings. Nothing is held as leverage and there is no notice period protecting a revenue stream, because there is not one.
If your work is well-defined, hourly costs you more and transfers the estimate risk onto you. We will say so even though hourly is the more profitable arrangement for us when a project runs long.
Everything below is represented in shipped work on this site, not an aspirational list. 30 technologies across the portfolio.
On an hourly contract, a project that takes longer than estimated earns the supplier more money. That is not an accusation about anyone's integrity — it is simply what the incentive does over time, and it is worth naming because almost nobody selling hourly work will name it for you.
Fixed scope inverts it. If we estimate badly, that is our problem and your number does not move, which means we are paid for finishing rather than for elapsed time. It also forces both of us to be specific about what is being built before anything is spent, which is where most project failures are actually prevented.
None of that makes hourly wrong. Genuinely exploratory work, unpredictable maintenance, or a procurement process that requires it are all real situations, and in those cases we will agree a rate rather than force a model that does not fit. What we will not do is quietly let you pick the more expensive option when your work is well-defined enough to be quoted. How pricing works sets out the comparison in full.
Yes, if that is genuinely what you want. It is not our default and we will explain why before agreeing to it, but it is available rather than quietly refused. The reason fixed scope is the default is that it puts the risk of a wrong estimate on us: if the work takes longer than we thought, that is our problem, and your number does not move. Hourly reverses that — slower work costs you more, which rewards exactly the wrong thing, and you cannot know the total when you sign. There are real cases where hourly is the honest answer: genuinely exploratory work, an unpredictable maintenance load, or an internal procurement process that only permits time-based engagement. In those cases we agree a rate in writing, log time against real tasks, and you can move to fixed scope as soon as the work is definable enough.
A named engineer, and you will have spoken to them before anything is agreed. This is a small senior studio led by its founder, not a supplier with a bench — you are not assigned a resource from a pool and there is no possibility of the work being passed to someone cheaper after signing, because there is nobody to pass it to. The direct consequence is a genuine constraint on how many projects run at once, and if we are not available in your timeframe we will tell you that instead of taking the work and starting late. Where a project needs a specific skill outside the core stack, we say so and agree how it is covered rather than improvising quietly.
Yes. If you run a process, we join it rather than asking you to adopt ours — your Jira or Linear, your repository and branching conventions, your review standards, your CI, your definition of done. Attending a daily standup is fine given the timezone overlap. Two things are worth agreeing at the start. First, how scope is handled: if work arrives continuously through a board, the phased-block model fits better than a single fixed quote, since a fixed quote needs a fixed scope to price against. Second, who has final say on technical decisions inside our work, so it is settled before it matters rather than during a disagreement.
Tell us early and we will be straight about whether we can supply it. Because this is a small senior team rather than an agency with capacity to reallocate, the honest answer is sometimes no — and no is better than yes followed by a junior contractor you did not choose appearing in your repository. Where we can, additional scope is quoted as a new phase against agreed work. Where we cannot, we will say so in time for you to plan, and help you brief someone else properly; the codebase is documented and conventional specifically so another engineer can be productive without us. What we will not do is add people to hit a date, since that reliably makes a late project later.
You stop, and you keep everything. There is no notice period, no minimum term, and no retainer to cancel, because none of those exist in the first place. Everything has been deploying to your accounts since the first commit, so at any point you already hold the repositories, credentials, cloud accounts and store listings — there is no handover event to complete and nothing of ours in the deployment path. On a fixed-scope project you settle for the phase completed; on hourly, for time logged. The reason we structure it this way is that it removes any commercial reason to keep you rather than to be worth keeping, which is a better position for both sides.
An honest comparison of hiring in-house, going offshore and using a studio is in offshore vs in-house vs studio, and the practicalities by market are on working across borders.