There’s a growing trend that’s both alarming and detrimental to the software development industry: clients with wildly unrealistic expectations, expecting to pay mere hundreds of pounds for projects that should cost many times over that amount. It’s a trend we encounter all too often, and one that leads to disappointment and frustration on all sides.
Take my “favourite” (it’s not something I like I find it bloody terrifying being honest) example this week: a client approached us asking for “an app like Uber for £100” – let that sink in.
Uber, one of the most complex and high-performing platforms in the world, with millions in development and eye-watering running costs, and somehow, the expectation was to replicate this for pocket change. Of course, these magic get-rich-quick schemes don’t exist. What does exist, however, is a dangerous culture of unrealistic expectations.
A Distorted Understanding of Costs
To give some perspective, here’s a breakdown of average hourly rates for a Software Developer (I’ve chosen this level for comparison purposes and please remember those with less or more experience will cost differing amounts at their career levels but you will get the idea) across the world:
| Country | Average Range (GBP) |
|---|---|
| Argentina | £25 – £45 |
| Bangladesh | £15 – £25 |
| Belarus | £25 – £40 |
| Brazil | £20 – £40 |
| Bulgaria | £30 – £50 |
| China | £20 – £40 |
| Colombia | £20 – £35 |
| Egypt | £15 – £30 |
| Hungary | £35 – £55 |
| India | £15 – £35 |
| Kenya | £15 – £25 |
| Mexico | £25 – £40 |
| Pakistan | £15 – £25 |
| Philippines | £20 – £30 |
| Poland | £35 – £60 |
| Romania | £30 – £50 |
| South Africa | £25 – £40 |
| Ukraine | £25 – £45 |
| United Kingdom | £50 – £120 |
| Vietnam | £15 – £30 |
When you see these figures, the idea that you can build a complex, high-functioning app for £100 seems absurd, but it’s a reality we face as tech providers. Clients are increasingly drawn to low-cost development centres that stack their teams with underpaid, low-skilled developers, exploiting both clients and staff in the name of profit.
The “Race to the Bottom” Culture
These low-cost development centres contribute to a “race to the bottom”—a culture where quality is sacrificed in favour of cost-cutting. Clients are often lured by the promise of cheap development but end up with shoddy deliverables. The appeal of saving money up front is overshadowed by the long-term costs: delayed timelines, buggy software, and missed opportunities.
Even worse, this culture sets up conflict from the outset. Clients expect “Uber-like” solutions on shoestring budgets, and when those expectations are inevitably not met, developers are left scrambling to deliver anything at all while trying to protect their own cash flow. This creates a toxic environment where neither side wins.
Our CTO, Mike Blamires, sums it up best: clients are after “Michelin star food at McDonald’s prices.” This mindset isn’t just flawed—it’s damaging to the industry. Quality, innovation, and trust are sacrificed when clients and developers engage in this race to the bottom.
The Consequences for Clients
The cost of choosing the wrong tech partner is steep. Clients who go for the cheapest option are setting themselves up for failure. The consequences are clear:
- Poor quality deliverables: Cheap development often leads to poorly built solutions that can’t scale or meet business requirements. Often they don’t even work at all! We’ve been working with one unfortunate client who had previously engaged another “provider” and they had been charged $25,000 and didn’t have a single working page! How would you feel if this was you?
- Delays and missed deadlines: Rushed, low-cost development teams don’t have the capacity to manage complex timelines
- Higher long-term costs: A “bargain” solution often needs to be rebuilt from the ground up, costing far more than a high-quality solution would have in the first place
- Frustration and dissatisfaction: When expectations are wildly out of line with reality, clients are left disappointed, while developers struggle to deliver under impossible constraints
The Broader Impact on the Industry
Unrealistic budgets often result in a cycle of frustration, wasted time, and missed opportunities for both clients and tech providers. When clients approach a project with budgets that don’t align with the scope or complexity of their goals, the business development phase can quickly become a series of painful negotiations and resets. The back-and-forth that ensues isn’t just about bridging a budget gap—it’s a conversation that reveals misaligned expectations and ultimately stalls progress and for tech providers results in “wasted” non-chargeable time.
For the client, this can be an exhausting process. Weeks or even months can be spent searching for providers who might fit within a limited budget, only to discover that cutting costs often means cutting essential features, quality, or timelines – worse still many are left to believe that their expectations are being met only to find our the truth down the line.
Providers, in turn, face a similar struggle. While they want to deliver value and meet client needs, an unrealistic budget forces them to compromise on quality or turn down work altogether. These are missed opportunities for both sides, where meaningful projects never get off the ground simply because the financial expectations were misaligned from the start. I don’t think it’s surprising that many providers will table something just to get some cash through the door and deal with the fallout down the line!
This cycle of negotiating down can also damage trust and tarnish relationships before the project even begins. Providers are less inclined to go the extra mile when they sense a lack of alignment, and clients may lose faith in the provider’s ability to deliver if they sense too much pushback on cost. Ultimately, unrealistic budgets prevent both parties from focusing on what truly matters: creating solutions that drive real value. When budget expectations are set realistically from the outset, both clients and providers can work toward the same goals, fostering a smoother business development process and setting the project up for success.
A Call for Realistic Budgets and Better Due Diligence
Clients need to have a harsh reality check. Building quality tech that meets your business goals by delivering real value isn’t cheap, and it certainly isn’t fast. When you start by underbudgeting or expecting premium results on the cheap, you’re setting your project up for failure before it even begins.
If you’re serious about creating a tech solution that works, then you need to do your due diligence:
- Understand the true cost of development. Good developers are professionals who deserve to be paid for their expertise
- Be realistic. If your project is complex, it will take time and money to do it right
- Trust your tech partner. You’re hiring experts, so be open to their advice on scope, timelines, and budget
Understanding the True Costs of Quality Software Development
When selecting a software development partner, it’s critical to understand the true cost of quality—especially when you’re working with top-tier talent. Choosing the cheapest option often results in subpar outcomes, but engaging developers from the top 25% of talent ensures the best results, albeit at a higher cost. Here’s what I believe the real rates look like for the most skilled software engineers across common development centers, and how much you should realistically budget for different project sizes:
| Country | True Hourly Rate (Top 25%) (GBP) | Small Project Estimate (GBP) | Medium Project Estimate (GBP) | Large Project Estimate (GBP) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Argentina | £45 – £65 | £45k – £65k | £100k – £160k | £250k – £400k |
| Bangladesh | £35 – £55 | £35k – £55k | £85k – £140k | £200k – £320k |
| Belarus | £45 – £65 | £45k – £65k | £100k – £160k | £250k – £400k |
| Brazil | £40 – £60 | £40k – £60k | £90k – £150k | £220k – £360k |
| Bulgaria | £50 – £75 | £50k – £75k | £120k – £200k | £300k – £500k |
| China | £40 – £60 | £40k – £60k | £90k – £150k | £220k – £360k |
| Colombia | £40 – £60 | £40k – £60k | £90k – £150k | £220k – £360k |
| Egypt | £35 – £55 | £35k – £55k | £85k – £140k | £200k – £320k |
| Hungary | £55 – £85 | £55k – £85k | £130k – £220k | £320k – £550k |
| India | £40 – £60 | £40k – £60k | £90k – £150k | £220k – £360k |
| Kenya | £35 – £50 | £35k – £50k | £85k – £130k | £200k – £300k |
| Mexico | £45 – £65 | £45k – £65k | £100k – £160k | £250k – £400k |
| Pakistan | £35 – £55 | £35k – £55k | £85k – £140k | £200k – £320k |
| Philippines | £40 – £60 | £40k – £60k | £90k – £150k | £220k – £360k |
| Poland | £55 – £85 | £55k – £85k | £130k – £220k | £320k – £550k |
| Romania | £50 – £75 | £50k – £75k | £120k – £200k | £300k – £500k |
| South Africa | £45 – £65 | £45k – £65k | £100k – £160k | £250k – £400k |
| Ukraine | £45 – £65 | £45k – £65k | £100k – £160k | £250k – £400k |
| United Kingdom | £90 – £170 | £90k – £170k | £220k – £400k | £500k – £800k |
| Vietnam | £35 – £55 | £35k – £55k | £85k – £140k | £200k – £320k |
Project Size Breakdown:
- Small Projects: Typically MVPs or basic applications, lasting 2-3 months
- Medium Projects: More complex applications with additional features, integrations, and custom functionalities, lasting 4-6 months
- Large Projects: Comprehensive software solutions with high complexity, integrations, and scalability needs, lasting 6-12+ months
Why This Matters
By opting for developers in the top 25% of the talent pool, you ensure your project will be handled by skilled professionals who can deliver a product that’s scalable, secure, and efficient. But this also comes with a price tag that reflects the value of their expertise.
Cutting costs by engaging lower-tier developers often leads to poor quality, missed deadlines, and higher long-term expenses, as you’ll likely end up paying for costly fixes and reworks. As you consider offshore or nearshore teams, it’s important to set realistic budgets and focus on quality over cost.
For more insights, check out some of our other posts on the topic:
Atomise’s Approach: Unlocking Value and Enabling Progress with Realistic Solutions
At Atomise, we know that successful technology isn’t born from magic—it’s built with smart, thoughtful planning and expertise. We won’t promise you an “Uber-like” solution for under £100, but we can deliver valuable, impactful tech solutions designed to fit your needs and budget. Our approach is all about unlocking value, even for projects with tighter budgets, and helping businesses take meaningful first steps without overextending financially.
Our consultative approach starts with an upfront conversation about your goals, challenges, and budget. We work closely with you to break down your vision into achievable, bite-sized deliverables that generate traction and value. By leveraging Proof of Concepts (PoCs) and Minimum Viable Products (MVPs), we help clients begin their tech journey in a manageable, cost-effective way. PoCs allow us to test key aspects of a solution, helping you see what’s possible without committing to full-scale development. With MVPs, we deliver essential features that let you validate ideas, gather feedback, and adjust as needed—all without needing a massive budget upfront.
This strategic, incremental approach means businesses don’t have to go all-in to start seeing results. By focusing on early wins and gradual scaling, we provide a clear, manageable path forward that aligns with both your ambitions and your budget. At Atomise, we’re here to make sure that ambition and budget go hand-in-hand, delivering real solutions that drive value, build confidence, and lay the groundwork for future growth.
Challenging the Status Quo: Raising Standards with Transparency
What I’ve written here may cause some discomfort among tech providers, and I get it—this approach opens a can of worms. But our commitment at Atomise goes beyond simply delivering solutions; we’re here to raise the standards of our industry. Many tech providers might balk at the idea of pulling back the curtain on budget realities and project risks, but we believe our clients deserve transparency, clarity, and honesty. That’s why one of our core values is transparency—we are dedicated to shining a light on the practices, challenges, and true costs that shape successful projects.
We’re challenging both clients and providers to work together in setting realistic expectations, aligning on goals, and driving toward outcomes that aren’t just about the bottom line but about genuine, long-term value. The more openly we address these issues, the better equipped we are to avoid misaligned expectations and to develop projects that succeed from the start.
Our commitment to raising industry standards is part of everything we do, and we’re not afraid to call out practices that undermine client success. We invite other providers to join us in this mission, pushing for higher standards across the board. Ultimately, this approach benefits not just clients and providers but the industry as a whole, fostering an environment where quality, trust, and true partnership lead the way. At Atomise, we’re here to champion this approach because we believe that tech, when done right, is a transformative force for good.
