Comparison
We are also offshore. Here is what that usually costs you, and what we do about it.
The objection is legitimate and worth answering directly rather than deflecting. Most of the risk in offshore delivery is structural, and most of it is fixable by not scaling.
Short version
The answer, before the argument
A large offshore shop wins on capacity and price per head, and it is the right call when the work is well-specified, parallel and large.
The recurring failure is not location, it is the layer between you and the engineer: an account manager, a rotating bench, and a senior who sold the work and then left it to juniors.
At a glance
Side by side
| Dimension | A larger offshore dev shop | Engisols |
|---|---|---|
| Team size available | 20–200 | Three, deliberately |
| Who you talk to | Account manager | The engineer writing it |
| Who writes the code | Mixed, often junior | Three seniors only |
| Rate per hour | Lower | Higher |
| Cost per shipped feature | Frequently higher | Lower |
| Timezone overlap | Varies, often minimal | Four fixed hours daily |
| Best for | Large parallel scoped work | Small senior high-context work |
In detail
Why each of those is true
The layer in between
The structural problem is the account manager. Requirements pass through someone whose job is the relationship rather than the system, and by the time a misunderstanding surfaces it is a sprint old. We do not have that role and will not add it.
Who actually writes it
The seniors in the pitch are frequently not the people on the keyboard. Ask directly who commits, and ask to meet them. The answer distinguishes shops far better than a portfolio does.
Rate versus cost
A lower hourly rate loses to the number of hours. Three seniors who understand the system deliver a feature in a week that a larger mixed team takes a month over, and the cheaper invoice is the more expensive project.
Overlap hours
Four hours of guaranteed overlap changes what is possible: a blocker raised at 10am is resolved that day rather than tomorrow. Below about two hours, every decision costs a day.
Capacity
This is where they genuinely win. They can put eight people on it next week and we cannot put four on it ever. If the work is large, parallel and specified, that is decisive.
The honest part
When a larger offshore dev shop is the better answer
Written without hedging. If one of these describes you, take it — the referral is worth more to us than a bad fit.
Choose a larger offshore dev shop
- The work is large, well-specified and genuinely parallel.
- You need eight engineers next month and the spec is stable enough to hand over.
- You have an internal technical lead who can direct and review their output.
- Budget per head is the binding constraint.
Choose Engisols
- The work needs judgement rather than throughput.
- The spec is not fully known yet, so requirements will change mid-build.
- You have been through this once already and inherited the result.
- You want to talk to the person writing the code, by name.
FAQ
Questions people actually ask
You are offshore too. Why is your version different?
Structure rather than geography. No account manager, no bench, no juniors, and four fixed overlap hours daily. Those are the specific mechanisms that make offshore delivery fail, and they are all choices rather than consequences of location.
How do we know seniors do the work and not juniors?
There are three of us and you meet all three. There is no bench to rotate, which is the same reason our capacity is limited and the availability line on the homepage is real rather than scarcity theatre.
What about the timezone?
Four hours of overlap with US Eastern and UK, every working day, written into the engagement. Anything outside that is async with written updates you can read rather than attend.
What happens if communication breaks down?
Everything is in your repo and your cloud account from day one, with documentation as we go. Leaving costs you time, not access — which is the actual fear behind this question.