Management SaaS Solution for small to mid-sized accounting firms.

Feature factories take orders, say yes to everything, avoid asking questions, and focus only on output. Strategic partners challenge assumptions, suggest better workflows, prioritize based on impact, and bring product thinking—not just coding—to the table.

Nearshore Latin America teams typically cost $35–$65/hr for seniors vs $120–$180/hr in the US. A 7-month MVP might cost $180k–$300k nearshore versus $500k–$900k in the US for comparable quality.

Ask them to walk through architecture decisions they’ve personally made. Mid-level developers describe tasks; senior developers explain trade-offs, scaling implications, security considerations, and long-term maintenance effects. This distinction is very clear in conversation.

If your workflow is standard, off-the-shelf is more cost-efficient. If your firm has unique processes, automation logic, or wants proprietary capabilities that drive differentiation, custom is the better long-term investment. The decision hinges on whether software is cost or strategy.

A conservative starting budget is $250k–$500k for a commercially viable MVP, plus $15k–$40k per month for ongoing development once you hit traction. Platforms with 100+ features often exceed $1M in total investment.

Look for specifics: architecture approach, security model, team composition, risk management, integration strategy, delivery cadence, and itemized assumptions. Generic proposals are a warning sign—they indicate a shallow understanding of accounting workflows.

Yes. A 3–6 week paid discovery sprint is standard for reducing risk. It validates team quality, communication, architecture, and alignment before committing to a long-term engagement.

Your contract should include milestone-based payments, acceptance criteria tied to quality, the right to pause or terminate with code ownership intact, and time-and-materials flexibility so you aren’t locked into a broken fixed-price agreement.

For accounting software, starting with a single developer usually slows progress and increases risk. A small, senior team of 2–4 is the optimal configuration for discovery, architecture, development, and QA. One dev only makes sense after the platform is stable.

Red flags include vague explanations of compliance, no logs or audit trails in past work, lack of senior engineers, rotating teams, no architecture documentation, no clear timeline, or using “we’ll add security later” as a standard phrase.

You need full ownership of all source code, architecture, and assets; no reuse rights by the vendor; explicit assignment of inventions; protection against competing products; and immediate access to the repo at all times. These cannot be optional in fintech/accounting.

Most accounting platforms take 4–8 weeks of discovery and architecture, then 4–7 months of development for a true MVP—longer if complex workflows, payments, or deep integrations are part of version one. Anyone promising 6–10 weeks is either inexperienced or cutting corners.

Look for concrete proof: architecture diagrams showing secure data handling, examples of SOC 2-aligned processes, past systems that involved audit trails or PII, and engineers who can explain not just what they built, but the compliance logic behind it. Vague answers are a red flag.

A high-quality nearshore agency usually costs 20–40% less than hiring full-time engineers in the US. Once you factor in recruiting, benefits, turnover, management overhead, and infrastructure, an in-house team often ends up 1.5–2x more expensive for early-stage products.

Budgets typically range from $180k to $450k for an MVP, depending on complexity, integrations, compliance requirements, and whether you hire nearshore or US-based developers. Full-featured platforms with automation, workflows, billing, and multi-tenant architecture frequently exceed $700k.