Is an agency more expensive than hiring?

Per hour, usually yes. Per outcome, it depends on how many functions you need and how long a search would take. One senior marketing hire is a salary plus equity plus benefits plus the months you were not doing the work. The honest comparison is not agency versus one salary, it is agency versus the several hires you would need to cover the same range.

Will you work with our existing in-house team?

Yes, and that is the most common shape. We fill the gaps around the people you already have rather than replacing them, and we are explicit about who owns what so nobody is competing for the same territory. Where your team is strong we get out of the way.

Can you help us hire the in-house team eventually?

Yes, and we think that is often the right end state. We run recruiting for growth, comms, and commercial roles, and handing over to someone we helped you hire is a better outcome than an indefinite retainer. A partner whose incentive is to stay forever is misaligned with you.

HONEST COMPARISON

agency or in-house team

Build in-house when you know exactly what you need, need it every day, and can afford to wait three to six months for the right person. Use an agency when you need several functions at once, need them now, or do not yet know which function is the constraint.

Talk it through

Other comparisons

THE CASE AGAINST US

when in-house is the right call

If a function is core to how your company competes, it belongs inside. An in-house lead accumulates context no external partner will ever match: they sit in the product conversations, they hear the sales calls, they know why the last thing failed. If you know precisely which role you need, that need is permanent, and you can carry a salary through the ramp, hire. Anyone telling you to outsource your entire growth function forever is selling, not advising.

THE CASE FOR US

when an agency is the right call

Hiring solves one function at a time. Most companies between pre-seed and Series B are short several at once, and a single senior hire cannot cover marketing, PR, partnerships, and hiring simultaneously no matter how good they are. An agency also absorbs the risk of being wrong: if the constraint turns out to be positioning rather than demand, we move, where a wrong hire costs you two quarters and a difficult conversation.

SIDE BY SIDE

Dimension	Building in-house	Unbound
Time to productive	Three to six months, including search, notice, and ramp	Weeks, because the team already exists
Range covered	One function, deeply	Several functions coordinated as one motion
Cost shape	Fixed salary, equity, benefits, and management overhead	Variable, scoped, and stoppable
Depth of context	Highest. Nothing beats being in the room daily	High but external. We work to close it, we never fully do
If it is not working	A performance process measured in months	A conversation and a scope change
When someone leaves	The knowledge leaves with them	The system and documentation stay with you

HOW TO DECIDE

If you can name the single role you need and the need is permanent, hire. If you are short several functions, or you are not yet sure which one is actually the constraint, an agency is both faster and cheaper to be wrong with. Many companies should do both: an agency to build the systems and find the constraint, then an in-house hire to own what works.

COMMON QUESTIONS

questions, answered

Per hour, usually yes. Per outcome, it depends on how many functions you need and how long a search would take. One senior marketing hire is a salary plus equity plus benefits plus the months you were not doing the work. The honest comparison is not agency versus one salary, it is agency versus the several hires you would need to cover the same range.

not sure which you need

Tell us the situation and we will tell you honestly which of these is the right buy, including when it is not us.

Start a conversation