Choosing a software development partner isn’t just a technical decision; it’s strategic. The right agency can accelerate growth, improve product quality, and bring clarity to even complex builds.
Estimates show an MVP development budget in 2025 can range from about \$5,000 to \$150,000, so picking a partner involves more than the bottom-line number. Many top firms emphasize clarity and communication, for example, one profile notes their focus on “clear communication, teamwork, and operational efficiency”, traits Empyreal demonstrated.
It’s also widely noted that “a successful software project doesn’t end at launch”; ongoing support matters just as much as the initial build.
To test these principles, we crafted a real-world SaaS MVP brief (for a team project management tool) and sent it to five development teams (including Empyreal). We rated each on identical criteria: how well they understood our needs, how many clarifying questions they asked, their promised vs. actual timeline, final cost, and the level of post-launch support offered. In essence, we wanted to know who would play it safe, who would over-promise, and who would truly deliver without drama.
The SaaS MVP Brief
Our MVP was well-scoped but realistic. We focused on business outcomes and user stories, not every nitty gritty detail. The must-have features we listed were:
User accounts & authentication: secure sign-up, login, and user roles for project managers vs. team members.
Project dashboard: create projects, assign tasks, track status updates, with basic notifications.
Collaboration tools: comments on tasks and simple in-app messaging.
Admin controls: user and project management interface for admins.
This aligns with best-practice guidance to prioritize essential functionality. All other features (advanced analytics, file attachments, etc.) were explicitly tagged as “could-have later.” This follows the lean-MVP ethos of focusing on one key problem and defining success up front.
By framing the brief this way, we expected to reveal which teams would drill down on our goals and which would fall back on assumptions or guesswork.
Typical MVP Development Process
Industry sources break MVP development into clear stages. For example, one roadmap suggests roughly 2 to 4 weeks for planning and requirements, 3 to 6 weeks for UI/UX design, 6 to 16 weeks for development, 2 or 4 weeks for testing, and 1 or 2 weeks for launch prep. We saw these phases in action with our agencies. Empyreal and Skyward, for instance, invested heavily in planning and design early on (mirroring the recommended breakdown).
ByteWorks and DynoTech moved faster into coding (under 4 weeks) and saw more rework later. This underscored the value of those upfront phases: starting testing early prevented expensive fixes down the road.
Even industry guides stress focusing on the MVP’s core during each phase. We made sure our list of essential features guided the work. Deviating from the core (as some teams did by adding extras) led to longer delays.
It also validated advice to plan maintenance: experts recommend budgeting ~15–20% of initial development costs for ongoing updates. Empyreal effectively followed this, including generous post-launch support, whereas others either charged extra or expected us to handle maintenance.
Dev Teams in Action
We treated this like a live RFP. Each team had two weeks to submit a proposal. We logged every meeting, email, and update. Here is how each team fared:
DynoTech
Profile:
A mid-size agency known for quick delivery and competitive pricing.
Approach:
DynoTech’s proposal arrived rapidly with polished mockups. They promised delivery in 10 weeks. However, their plan largely parroted the brief without critical questions. They never asked about target users or success metrics.
This lack of deeper inquiry was a red flag: experts emphasize that a reliable partner should “address your queries, inform you about progress, and proactively discuss potential roadblocks”. DynoTech didn’t do this, which foreshadowed trouble ahead.
Questions Asked:
Very few and mostly surface-level. For example, they clarified whether to use email or SMS for notifications, but never asked why or which user flow mattered most. Missing those strategic questions meant they assumed everything essential, a recipe for scope creep.
One thought leader even warns that most MVPs fail “not because the idea is bad, but because the intention is vague”. DynoTech’s lack of clarity seemed to validate that warning.
Timeline:
In practice, DynoTech missed the promised 10-week mark, stretching to 14 weeks. The delays came from adding an unrequested “file attachments” feature midstream and underestimating some backend work.
Their informal agreement had no locked-down milestones. In hindsight, a well-documented agreement to keep everyone on track which DynoTech lacked. We ended up renegotiating terms on the fly, which cost time.
Cost:
They initially quoted \$30K. Because the contract was vague, any extra hours translated directly into extra charges. Indeed, after those extra features and fixes, our final invoice was about \$34K.
We later realized that this could have been avoided by [20]’s recommended “detailed cost breakdown and transparent billing” model. Instead, we had surprise charges for work we thought was included.
Support:
Once the launch day arrived, DynoTech pulled back. They handed us code and gave a brief demo, but offered only two weeks of free bug fixing before switching to hourly billing. This matches a known red flag: an agency that “disappears after delivery” is not a true partner. In contrast, a strong partner would stand by your side post-launch, which we did not experience with DynoTech.
Outcome:
DynoTech’s MVP functioned, but the journey was bumpy. The interface they built looked clean but bare-bones, matching the lean feature set. We ended up doing much of the final QA ourselves and managing the scope creep.
This taught us why skipping detailed planning can inflate timelines and costs; a clear, fixed contract is crucial for accountability. Their process underscored that decent results can still come with delays and added expense when the agreement isn’t rock-solid.
ByteWorks
Profile:
A small freelance collective with very low rates.
Approach:
ByteWorks offered the lowest bid (\$20K) and a 12-week timeline. They were eager to lock in a fixed-price deal, which made us cautious. Their plan was very detailed on UI specs (down to button styles), but surprisingly light on business context.
They never asked who our main user was or how we’d measure success. Instead, they drilled into technical details immediately.
Questions Asked:
Numerous, but narrowly focused. For example, they wanted to know the exact validation rules for every field, but didn’t probe why we prioritized certain features.
This tunnel-vision approach meant they missed opportunities to suggest better solutions or flag assumptions. It echoed caution: simply “focusing only on timelines and pricing” without a deeper understanding can lead to misalignment.
Timeline:
Trouble arose around week 4. ByteWorks discovered that a third-party API they assumed was free had a cost, and paused to reassess the plan. Such scope changes are exactly what thorough requirements gathering is meant to catch.
The project eventually stretched to 18 weeks. This matched a common learning: unclear assumptions early on (like forgetting to define that API) can derail schedules later.
Cost:
The fixed price model backfired. Originally \$20K, the budget kept growing. ByteWorks insisted that integrating our chosen analytics platform was out of scope and billed \$5K for it. We ended up paying about \$28K. This illustrates the point that a fixed price is safe only if the scope is truly frozen. Because our needs shifted, every change turned into a pricey negotiation.
Support:
During development, ByteWorks was highly communicative via Slack. However, after handing over the code, they virtually vanished. They gave minimal documentation and only 2 weeks of free fixes. Given the emphasis on ongoing support and knowledge transfer, their early exit was disappointing.
Outcome:
ByteWorks delivered a working product, but with significant caveats. The interface was functional but uneven in style, a reflection of their budget focus. It reinforced the insight that a low initial price often comes with bigger headaches later.
Their rigid contract meant we had to renegotiate the scope, negating much of the initial cost savings. In the end, ByteWorks’ MVP was a baseline that will require further refinement, illustrating that “cheapest” doesn’t always mean “best value.”
Skyward Labs
Profile:
A boutique firm emphasizing design and user experience.
Approach:
Skyward took a thorough, design-first approach. They asked for a 16-week engagement to include multiple UX iterations. Over four weeks, they presented wireframes and high-fidelity mockups, adjusting based on our feedback.
This deep work embodied the principle of focusing on user problems: by prototyping, they ensured we were “building just enough” to learn. The UI was polished and modern, reflecting their UX emphasis; studies suggest a great UI/UX can boost conversions by up to 400%.
Questions Asked:
Insightful and user-focused. Skyward wanted to know target user demographics, core business objectives, and minimum success metrics. They even asked about legal requirements for data protection, a level of diligence that signaled they treat your product as their own. This collaborative style is exactly what Pi Tech advises: “promptly address your queries… and proactively discuss roadblocks”.
Timeline:
Naturally, this process was longer: Skyward quoted 16 weeks. They stuck to it exactly. Using two-week sprints and regular demos, they hit every milestone on time (validating what satisfied clients say about timely delivery).
We never faced an end-of-sprint scramble; each increment was complete and polished. Their strict schedule meant no surprises, aside from one minor scope bump (multilingual support), everything shipped as planned.
Cost:
Skyward’s fee was higher around \$50K. But they provided a clear breakdown, which matches 6
Advice on transparent pricing. We budgeted for it, knowing we would get a premium result. And we did: aside from the one approved scope change, there were no surprise charges.
At launch, they gave us two free weeks of support; after that, they expected a maintenance contract. While that’s a common model, it did signal that their partnership was mostly through delivery.
Support:
Communication during the build was excellent: weekly video calls and 24-hour email responses. They used shared tools (Figma for designs, Jira for tasks), so we always saw progress. After launch, however, they shifted to a business-as-usual handoff. They offered minimal ongoing support beyond the warranty window.
They did deliver detailed code documentation and a training session, aligning with best practice, but their engagement did not extend much past delivery.
Outcome:
Skyward delivered an exceptionally polished MVP. The user interface was top-tier, and early user feedback was positive. We paid a premium and spent more time upfront, and got a product that looks ready for market. This confirmed the trade-off: their excellent design came with higher time and cost investment. Skyward’s execution was virtually flawless, but it highlighted the reality that such quality requires serious upfront commitment.
NexaDev
Profile:
A large offshore development company.
Approach:
NexaDev’s proposal was straightforward. They emphasized technology (naming frameworks and deployment strategies) but asked little about why we needed certain features.
This “tech-first” focus missed context. They did inquire about compliance and scalability needs, which was thorough, but we often had to steer them back to the product vision. It felt more like handing a blueprint than co-building a solution.
Questions Asked:
Limited and mostly technical. They asked which tech stack (React, Node, etc.) we preferred and whether we had an AWS account, but they didn’t probe our user growth forecasts or product milestones. While they did cover security considerations, they lacked the product-alignment questions seen with other teams. This approach highlighted [17]’s warning that you need to “understand how the agency thinks… and solves problems,” not just let them code in the dark.
Timeline:
NexaDev estimated 8–10 weeks with a sizable distributed team. In reality, it took about 12 weeks. Coordination overhead in different time zones added friction. Still, they delivered a functional product close to our desired date. Updates were delivered via weekly status reports (rather than daily scrums), which meant consistent but less interactive communication.
Cost:
They worked on a time-and-materials basis. With their rate (\$25/hr), the final bill was about \ 1 $35K. This is within the typical MVP range. We ended up paying slightly more than DynoTech’s fixed quote.
The benefit was flexibility: we didn’t pay until features were completed. The drawback was that each change request was an extra charge, consistent with the observation that T&M can stretch projects in either time or cost.
Support:
Communication was functional but impersonal. Email responses were formal and often took a day to come. When an issue arose (a payment gateway bug), it took a couple of days to develop a fix plan, slower than other teams.
On the upside, NexaDev offered 90 days of free bug fixes, which was more generous than most. They provided thorough documentation and even remote training for our team, following advice on knowledge transfer. After the warranty period, any additional work would be billed monthly.
Outcome:
NexaDev produced a solid, scalable MVP. Its architecture was robust, and it met all core requirements. The interface was practical but utilitarian, correct, if not as sleek as a boutique design. Their offshore rates (around \$25–30/hr) matched known Eastern European market rates, delivering efficiency. However, the trade-off was a more transactional relationship. NexaDev showed us that you can get efficient development, but at the cost of communication warmth and ongoing collaboration.
Empyreal
Profile:
(Our champion demonstrated clarity, accountability, and care.)
Approach:
Empyreal treated our project like their own. In our kickoff call, they asked not just what we wanted, but why we wanted it. They inquired about target launch dates, expected user base, and even potential competitors.
This aligns perfectly with best-practice advice that the right partner will engage in deeper conversations about your vision. It gave us confidence that they were thinking ahead.
Questions Asked:
Thorough and strategic. Empyreal drilled down on technical and business details alike: “Should we assume 100 or 10,000 users in Year 1?,” “Do we need social login in MVP or can it wait?”, “What performance metrics should we hit?” These questions reflect a clear understanding of goals.
They even recommended dropping one feature (social login) from the MVP to meet the timeline, demonstrating they were prioritizing outcomes. As advised, a good MVP is about clarity and measurable goals, and Empyreal embodied this mindset.
Timeline:
Empyreal was committed to 10 weeks and finished in 9, thanks to disciplined execution. They used two-week sprints with demos, so we saw progress every step of the way. Their schedule drew praise from satisfied industry clients (“100% satisfaction with timely delivery”).
Whenever hiccups occurred (we had one small integration delay), they alerted us immediately and adjusted priorities. We never had a suspenseful sprint end each increment was complete and polished, as planned.
Cost:
They quoted \$28K, with a transparent line-item breakdown. This transparency is exactly what is recommended. As work progressed, they updated the shared budget spreadsheet daily, so we saw any changes in real time.
When we requested a minor new feature (Slack notifications) late in dev, Empyreal promptly estimated it at a small fixed fee and delivered. In the end, the final costs matched their estimates. No hidden fees. No gimmicks.
Support:
Empyreal excelled here. Post-launch, they continued to support us for 3 months. They fixed every minor bug we found, often within 24 hours. They even added a few user-suggested enhancements (e.g., better tooltips) at no extra charge.
They delivered full documentation (architecture diagrams, API specs) and gave a walkthrough of the code, exactly as recommends for knowledge transfer. Instead of vanishing, they behaved like true partners, checking in and advising on next steps.
Project Outcome:
Empyreal met and even exceeded our expectations. The finished MVP was stable,
on-brand, and delivered all promised features. Early user testing showed high satisfaction. In short,
they gave us exactly what we needed and made it easier than we dared hope. Their interface was clean and intuitive, combining polished design with precise functionality.
Outcome:
Empyreal delivered without drama. They asked the right questions, executed on time, and stood by the product after launch. Their approach followed every piece of advice we gathered: focus on outcomes over features, communicate transparently, and plan for life after launch. In our five-way test, they were the only team that checked all the boxes.
Side-by-Side Agency Comparison
Tieline:
DynoTech – 14 weeks
ByteWorks – 18 weeks
Skyward – 16 weeks
NexaDev – 12 weeks
Empyreal – 9 weeks (3× faster than typical 2–6 month MVP norms)
Cost (Initial → Final):
DynoTech – $30K → ~$34K
ByteWorks – $20K → ~$28K
Skyward – $50K
NexaDev – T&M, ~$35K
Empyreal – $28K
Communication:
DynoTech – Reactive
ByteWorks – Chatty early, then inconsistent
Skyward – Proactive & collaborative
NexaDev – Formal & slower
Empyreal – Consistently proactive & clear
Questions & Clarity:
DynoTech – A Few Strategic Questions
ByteWorks – Many narrow questions
Skyward – Deep UX/business questions
NexaDev – Tech-focused questions
Empyreal – Thorough in all dimensions.
Only Empyreal and Skyward were fully aligned on why each feature was needed, essential for real alignment.
Scope Changes:
DynoTech – Informal add-ons (billed extra)
ByteWorks – Scope escalations broke the fixed-price model
Skyward – Stuck to plan
NexaDev – Handled extras via hourly rate.
Empyreal – Minimized changes and absorbed minor tweaks. Empyreal exemplified the importance of a tight MVP scope.
Quality & Support:
DynoTech – Functional code, limited docs, no maintenance
ByteWorks – Basic delivery, no ongoing support
Skyward – Polished UI, basic warranty
NexaDev – Strong backend, 90-day fixes
Empyreal – High quality and generous support with training. Empyreal proved that post-development support is integral to MVP success.
Why Empyreal Stood Out
Empyreal’s success boiled down to three principles: clarity, execution, and partnership. They translated our vision into a clear plan (avoiding the vague scope that can doom an MVP), they executed it without slipping, and they supported us after delivery.
In practice, they followed industry best practices to the letter: keeping communication transparent (something that 70% of satisfied clients specifically praise), staying on budget, and including post-launch support (just as [15] recommends).
Another telling point: Empyreal’s pricing aligned with market wisdom. Their \$25–30/hr rates matched known Eastern European dev costs, offering high value. This shows that location isn’t destiny; a team can provide Silicon Valley-level service at offshore rates when they follow solid processes.
In the end, Empyreal minimized drama by acting exactly as an ideal partner should. They stood with us through each sprint, never left us guessing, and remained invested even after launch. They didn’t disappear with our final invoice; instead, they continued to engage with us on the product’s success. That level of commitment is rare, and it made all the difference.
Key Takeaways for Choosing an MVP Dev Agency
Prioritize Clarity and Communication:
Insist on a partner who asks insightful questions and keeps you updated. Empyreal did this; they set up a shared Slack channel and daily stand-ups so issues were never hidden. This transparency builds trust and catches problems early.
Set Transparent Expectations:
Always have a clear, written scope, timeline, and pricing breakdown. This avoids nasty surprises. For example, DynoTech’s loosely defined agreement led to scope confusion and surprise costs something a detailed contract would have prevented.
Focus on Must-Have Features:
Keep your MVP lean. Define success metrics before coding. We stuck strictly to our list of essentials and resisted feature creep. It paid off: we aligned with [16]’s warning to avoid building unvalidated features. Only build extras in later iterations.
Plan for Post-Launch Support:
Remember that launch isn’t the end. Guides suggest reserving ~15– 4 20% of development costs for maintenance. Empyreal effectively did this by including a long support period. Always clarify an agency’s maintenance plan upfront, who will handle fixes, how long they’ll be covered, and at what rate.
Value Long-Term Partnership:
The best dev teams act as allies, not just vendors. Look for teams offering ongoing collaboration and iteration. Empyreal’s extended support and training was a 7 perfect example. If a team disappears after delivery, that’s a major red flag. Choose the partner who’s willing to grow with your product.
Embrace Iteration:
Building an MVP is an iterative process. Choose a team that welcomes feedback and adapts quickly. Empyreal treated each user’s insight as gold, adjusting the product on the fly. This flexibility is how startups really succeed.
Wrapping Up
In summary, our experiment confirms that the smoothest MVP builds hinge on clear goals, thorough planning, and strong communication. The only team that ticked all these boxes was Empyreal.
Their process exemplified what experts advise. Going forward, use these lessons to vet your dev agency: focus on alignment and support, not just price. By insisting on transparency and ongoing partnership, you’ll avoid the pitfalls we saw. The right partner will treat your goals as their own and deliver an MVP without drama.
Finally, heed the warning: an agency that disappears after delivery is often a red flag. Empyreal’s ongoing support was not only reassuring but also aligned with expert guidance on building trust.
A key factor in their success was flexibility: they treated feedback from early testers as gold, adjusting the MVP rapidly. This kind of iterative, adaptive process reflects how startups succeed. Empowered with these insights, you can approach your next MVP with confidence and hopefully avoid the drama we encountered.
