When building in-house costs more than you think

At some point, every software company reaches the same crossroads. Integrating a capability that the product doesn’t yet have can be time-consuming and costly.

In many cases, it can take between 12 and 18 months to build (depending on the product), while somewhere else in the market, a competitor is already offering it.

This is the point at which product development leads need to decide whether they build it themselves or find a partner who has already developed it.

At first glance, it seems like a straightforward trade-off between control and speed. In practice, however, it’s more complicated than that.

Latest Videos From

Watch full video here:

Building in-house is expensive

For product teams, the instinct is to build. If you own the capability, you have full control over how it works, how it’s scaled, and how it integrates into your central solution.

That logic is sound for core capabilities that sit at the heart of what makes the product valuable. However, customers often require capabilities that depend on new features outside of the team’s specialization. That’s where the instinct to build starts to cost more than it delivers.

Take cybersecurity as an example. If a company in an adjacent market wants to offer dark web monitoring, stealer log detection, or credentials exposure alerts on its platform, the underlying data infrastructure is enormously complex to build. It takes years to develop reliable sources, significant investment to maintain them at scale, and dedicated teams to keep pace with criminal ecosystems that constantly evolve.

That’s all before a single line of product code is even written.

The same challenge shows up in other sectors. Fintech teams address it through fraud detection and identity verification; compliance platforms address it through data sourcing. The specifics differ, but the shape of the problem is similar.

The full cost of building is rarely visible initially. Hiring specialists with the right expertise, building and maintaining the infrastructure, discovering (often after launch) that there are sources not being monitored or threats not being caught, and managing the ongoing operational work that follows every proprietary capability indefinitely.

When those costs are added up, it becomes clear that building these capabilities in-house often makes far less financial sense than it first appeared.

What an integrated partnership looks like

With an integrated product partnership, instead of building a capability completely from scratch, the partner’s technology is connected to the product via an API. From the customer’s perspective, it looks and feels like a native feature. There’s no separate login, no new vendor to onboard, and no visible complexity. The plugin simply enables them to gain a new capability inside of a product they already use.

This brings with it the opportunity for premium pricing tiers and natural upselling, giving sales teams something differentiated to talk about. And because customers are getting more value from the product over time, they’re less likely to move to a competitor.

But it’s the speed to market that makes the biggest difference. Delivering new capability in weeks rather than months or years means revenue starts flowing in faster, and along with it, customer feedback that can start informing the roadmap. A customer who starts using a feature this quarter rather than in a year’s time compounds positively across the whole customer base by accelerating revenue, customer feedback, retention, and competitive advantage simultaneously.

Five areas to examine before committing to a partner

Collaborations only deliver on these areas if the right partner is chosen. These five areas are well worth examining carefully:

1. Is the data proprietary? If the partner’s value comes from data (e.g., threat intelligence, dark web content, identity exposure signals, etc.) the key question is whether that data is unique to them, or whether it’s data that is available from multiple vendors. Shared sources create parity with competitors, not an advantage over them. If there’s no clear difference between this partner and a cheaper alternative, customers will eventually reach the same conclusion.
2. Is the integration genuinely well built? A working API isn’t quite the same as a well-designed one. Good partners invest in consistent data structures and engineering teams who are genuinely available when something doesn’t work. Poor integration experiences only serve to slow down launches and create ongoing maintenance burdens.
3. Do the economies scale? Pricing models that make sense at current volumes can become a problem as the customer base grows. Volume-based pricing (where costs scale proportionally with growth) indicates a partner who is aligned with the business’s success. Fixed-fee or rigid per-seat models can start to squeeze margins precisely when the product is performing well. Before signing, forecast what the partnership would cost if adoption grew by 10x.
4. Does the partnership preserve roadmap freedom? A partner who solves a major setback should not create a dependency that limits what the product can do moving forward. It’s worth understanding what would happen if the partner’s technology changed, degraded, or a key integration point was deprecated. Contracts should include service level protections, and the product architecture should not rely entirely on one partner’s continued performance.
5. Will customers notice? Within a few months of launching a new integrated capability, there should be clear evidence that it’s delivering value. Therefore, it’s critical to track security outcomes (e.g., how many exposures were identified, how many credentials were addressed, etc.) alongside business outcomes like adoption rates, revenue generated, and customer retention. If the numbers aren’t adding up, the capability hasn’t earned its place. Set the success criteria before launch, not at the point of renewal.

Regular evaluation

Partnerships require regular and honest evaluation. If data quality has declined, integration support has become more difficult to access, or customer adoption has stalled despite genuine effort, those are all signals worth acting on. The cybersecurity landscape moves quickly, and a partnership that was delivering strong results in its first year may need significant re-evaluation by year three, particularly if the threat environment has evolved and neither side has kept pace.

The best approach is to treat an integrated partnership the same way any feature is treated on the product roadmap, by acting on what the data shows, and being willing to make changes when it stops delivering.

Integrated product partnerships, done well, are one of the most effective ways to accelerate a product roadmap without overextending an engineering team.

The decision to partner rather than build is often the sharper strategic choice. The real key is to be rigorous about selecting who you partner with, being honest about whether it’s working, and being willing to act if the situation changes.