A development agency and jig can 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 change.
This is not about code quality. Agencies employ excellent engineers, and a well-run engagement produces solid software. It is about fit: agencies are structured around large, well-scoped projects with long timelines, and jig is built around the smaller, higher-frequency problem most operations teams actually have. Most businesses we work with have both kinds of work running at once, and we are glad when the bigger projects go to a good agency.
Side by side
How the two differ
| Dimension | jig | Development agency |
|---|---|---|
| Commitment to start | None. Discovery is free and clients see working software before paying anything. | Usually a signed statement of work and a scoping phase, which protects both sides on a large project. |
| Time to first working software | 5-7 days for the first tool, chosen from the client's top 5 pain points. | Measured in months, because discovery, architecture, scoping and contracting come first. |
| Pricing structure | $3,000 per active build week. Billing starts at deployment, not day one. | Fixed bid or day rate agreed up front, which gives budget certainty across a long programme. |
| Handling new requirements mid-project | A new week at the same $3,000 rate. Bug fixes are covered under the hosting fee. | A change order against the agreed scope, which is what keeps a fixed price fixed. |
| Code and data ownership | Client owns everything from day one. Export, self-deploy, or cancel at any time. | Set out in the contract, and worth negotiating explicitly at the start. |
| Visibility during the build | Access within 2-3 days; the client can watch the tool being built. | Status updates at agreed milestones, which is normal for a multi-month project. |
| Best suited for | A single internal tool, iterating week by week. | Large, well-defined projects with a long horizon and a 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. Neither is the cheap option and neither is the right one every time.
When an agency is the right call
If the project is large, the requirements are genuinely fixed, and the organisation needs a single fixed-price contract for budgeting reasons, a development agency remains a good choice. Regulatory programmes with a defined scope and a hard deadline often fit this pattern better than an iterative, week-by-week model. So do system replacements and anything that touches multiple departments at once.
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.
See the difference for yourself. Discovery is free and there's no commitment until you see working software.
Book a free discovery callThe underlying difference
Agencies are structured around project completion. jig is structured around an ongoing relationship with a business's operations, one tool and one week 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.”