A traditional development agency and jig can, in principle, build the same tool. Both start from a set of requirements and end with working software. The difference shows up in everything between those two points: how the engagement starts, how it's priced, who owns what, and what happens when the requirements inevitably change.
This comparison is not about code quality. Agencies employ excellent engineers, and a well-run agency engagement produces solid software. The distinction is structural: agencies are built around large, well-scoped projects with long timelines. jig is built around the smaller, higher-frequency problem most operations teams actually have.
Snapshot
Where the models diverge
| Dimension | jig | Traditional agency |
|---|---|---|
| Commitment to start | None. Discovery is free and clients see working software before paying anything. | Usually a signed statement of work and a paid discovery or scoping phase. |
| Time to first working software | 5-7 days for the first tool, chosen from the client's top 5 pain points. | Typically measured in months once discovery, scoping, and contracting are complete. |
| Pricing structure | $3,000 per active build week plus a platform fee. Billing starts at deployment, not day one. | Fixed bid or day rate agreed up front, often requiring change orders for scope shifts. |
| Handling new requirements mid-project | A new sprint at the same $3,000 rate. Bug fixes are covered under the platform fee. | A change order process; cost and timeline impact vary by contract terms. |
| Code and data ownership | Client owns everything from day one. Export, self-deploy, or cancel at any time. | Typically negotiated in the contract; not always granted by default. |
| Visibility during the build | Dashboard access within 2-3 days; client can watch the tool being built in real time. | Usually status updates at agreed milestones, not continuous visibility. |
| Best suited for | A single tool through a connected internal platform, iterating weekly. | Large, well-defined projects with a long time horizon and fixed scope. |
The honest trade-off: a fixed-bid agency contract gives budget certainty on a large, clearly scoped project. jig gives speed and flexibility on problems that are hard to fully scope up front, which describes most internal tooling.
When an agency still makes sense
If the project is large, the requirements are genuinely fixed, and the organisation needs a single fixed-price contract for budgeting reasons, a traditional agency engagement remains a reasonable choice. Regulatory programmes with a defined scope and a hard deadline often fit this pattern better than an iterative, sprint-based model.
jig is built for the more common case: a business with several unclear-priority workflow problems, none of which justify a six-month engagement on their own, but all of which are costing real operating time every week.
The underlying difference
Agencies are structured around project completion. jig is structured around an ongoing relationship with a business's operations, one tool and one sprint at a time. Neither structure is wrong. The right choice depends on whether the problem in front of you is a project with an end date, or a way of working that needs to keep adapting.
This distinction holds across sectors and company sizes. The question worth asking before any engagement starts is not “which vendor is better,” but “does our problem have a fixed scope, or does it need to evolve with us.”