Key Takeaways
The most consequential infrastructure choices that founders face often disguise themselves as mere technical tasks, yet beneath that surface they carry profound strategic implications that may define a company’s trajectory for years to come. Decisions that appear to revolve solely around codebases, APIs, or architecture frequently extend far beyond the realm of engineering; they reach into the very core of how an organization maintains agility, safeguards independence, and preserves its long-term capacity for innovation.
Before a leader determines whether to construct an internal system from scratch or adopt an external solution, it is vital to rigorously challenge every foundational assumption. This means subjecting each hypothesis to scrutiny to expose unseen dependencies, operational risks, or overlooked fragilities that might subtly dictate the company’s evolution. The consequences of these unseen factors can accumulate quietly, influencing product velocity, market responsiveness, and even strategic control without anyone realizing it until too late.
In the early stages of company building, most founders instinctively perceive the build-versus-buy question—particularly regarding backend infrastructure—as a straightforward engineering tradeoff. That was certainly my early assumption as well: that this decision was simply about optimizing performance, cost, and developer efficiency. However, over time and through experience, I learned that the issue is far more consequential. At UNest, I reached a turning point when I discovered, through difficult lessons and real-world challenges, that the true essence of the build-or-buy dilemma is not just technical efficiency—it is control. Once that understanding crystallized, it altered my decision-making philosophy permanently. I began to evaluate every major technology and infrastructure choice through the lens of autonomy, adaptability, and strategic leverage.
This expanded reflection tells the story of how that insight emerged—how experience transformed abstract theory into conviction—and it introduces the five-question framework I now rely on to evaluate when to build and when to buy. This framework, shaped by choices made while scaling UNest, a highly regulated fintech enterprise, keeps the focus on balancing speed with stability and innovation with compliance. It is grounded in lived decisions that revealed the fine line between apparent convenience and long-term ownership.
Know when build vs. buy becomes a matter of control
When we founded UNest, our mission was ambitious yet deceptively simple: to modernize how families plan, save, and invest for their children’s financial futures. In those initial phases, our attention mirrored that of countless other startup teams—focused primarily on feature development, improving the onboarding flow, and designing an experience intuitive enough to make complex financial concepts feel accessible to everyday families.
However, growth has a way of transforming what once seemed straightforward. As we scaled and our user base expanded, we unknowingly crossed an invisible threshold. We found ourselves no longer merely building a product; we were operating on an underlying infrastructure that increasingly dictated our capabilities. Suddenly, tasks that had felt well within our grasp began depending on third parties. Adding a simple feature meant navigating a maze of partner approvals. Development schedules were no longer determined solely by our internal capacity but by the timelines and priorities of external vendors. Compliance mandates introduced new complications—workarounds that introduced fragility instead of strength, revealing structural weaknesses hidden beneath the surface.
Initially, I interpreted these growing pains as standard fintech friction, the usual side effects of operating within a regulated ecosystem. Yet, over time, I perceived that something much deeper was unfolding. Factors that defined our business’s agility—our speed, reliability, and operational resilience—were slipping outside our direct control. That was the pivotal moment when the build-versus-buy debate became more than an abstract question; it became an existential one. We realized that without true ownership over key systems, we had limited ownership over our destiny.
Use this five-question test before you build or buy
The framework I rely on today was not something I developed overnight. It emerged organically, forged through trial, observation, and repeated iteration. I paid attention to which decisions magnified leverage and which, although convenient in the moment, imposed hidden risk. Over time, these patterns evolved into a structured process—a lens through which every infrastructure decision is now evaluated. The test contains five essential questions that guide whether we should build internally or rely on external solutions.
1. Determine whether it’s interchangeable or a point of control
The first question I ask is deceptively simple: What happens if this system fails? This inquiry helps distinguish between commodities and control points. Some technological components—like analytics platforms, internal productivity tools, or support ticketing systems—are relatively interchangeable. If one vendor collapses or underperforms, we can reasonably substitute another with limited operational interruption. The inconvenience is temporary; the stakes are manageable.
By contrast, there exist systems whose failure would create cascading consequences. At UNest, our account infrastructure, money movement pipelines, and compliance operations touched both customer assets and regulatory commitments. These were not replaceable components but vital arteries of trust and responsibility. If such a system faltered, the repercussions would ripple through every layer of our business, from brand integrity to compliance standing. Recognizing the distinction between replaceable convenience and irreplaceable control became a cornerstone of our decision process.
2. Ask whether it directly influences customer trust
The next consideration extends beyond code or architecture—it delves into brand promise and psychological trust. Each component of our product ecosystem either contributes to or detracts from why customers choose to engage with us. In UNest’s case, families entrusted us with their children’s financial futures; that trust was anchored in the dependability and transparency of the investment account experience itself. Reliability was synonymous with reputation. For that reason, we made the deliberate choice to build those systems internally. No off-the-shelf vendor solution fully aligned with our ethical obligations or long-term vision, and outsourcing such a core function would have meant outsourcing the very essence of our brand’s credibility.
Other features, such as gifting, held value but served a different purpose. They enhanced the product and delighted users but didn’t form the foundation of trust. This nuanced differentiation—between what delights users and what sustains their faith—is essential when deciding what to build internally. The lesson distilled from that experience remains concise yet powerful: if the failure of a component would drive customers away, reconsider delegating it to anyone else.
3. Examine whether you possess the expertise to build it effectively
Another frequent mistake among early founders arises from unexamined optimism. I encountered this firsthand when our team initially attempted to develop the gifting system internally. On paper, it looked feasible: we possessed strong engineers and a bias toward action. Yet, as development progressed, it became evident that we lacked specialized expertise in the intricate workflows and compliance nuances involved. The situation was exacerbated by our broker-dealer’s stringent regulatory requirements, which limited experimentation and inflated the time-to-deliver. Weeks stretched into months as engineering discussions became dominated not by innovation but by legal clarifications and procedural safeguards. We learned the hard way that enthusiasm cannot substitute for domain mastery. Building without adequate expertise might yield an illusion of progress, but it ultimately burns precious time and magnifies risk. There are instances when developing that expertise is justified, but such commitments must be intentionally strategic, not accidental detours born from underestimating complexity.
4. Evaluate not only the cost to build but the cost of delay
Many founders obsessively quantify build costs—hours, salaries, and budgets—yet neglect the subtler, more dangerous expense: the cost of delay. Every additional month devoted to constructing non-core systems internally is simultaneously a month diverted from refining the essential product, nurturing customer engagement, or generating the momentum necessary to attract investors. These opportunity costs, invisible on a balance sheet, often dwarf the explicit spend on engineering resources. This realization profoundly reshaped our approach. It is what eventually led us to acquire Littlefund rather than continue internal development of the gifting feature. By structuring the deal as an all-equity acquisition, we preserved cash flow while gaining an instantly functional, compliant system. On paper, acquisition might not have seemed cheaper—but in practice, the avoided delay was invaluable.
5. Ensure that you can disengage if you decide to buy
One final question now sits at the top of my decision checklist: if we buy, can we walk away? Dependence on third-party vendors introduces the ever-present threat of shared failure. We experienced this harsh reality when Synapse, the backend provider powering Littlefund, unexpectedly ceased operations. Though the failure was external, its effects became our responsibility overnight—we had to remove gifting entirely from our platform until we could rebuild that capacity elsewhere. The episode underscored a permanent truth: if a vendor collapse can paralyze your product, your ownership was never real. In my current venture, Mostt, this understanding dictates our procurement strategy. We only adopt third-party infrastructure that offers a defined exit route—whether technical, contractual, or operational. If separation would cripple the business, that dependency must be treated with the same caution and diligence as a core proprietary system.
Follow this rule to avoid costly infrastructure mistakes
Ultimately, build-versus-buy decisions are not matters of pride or purism; they are questions of resilience, control, and risk tolerance. The principle that now guides all my decisions is elegantly simple: purchase what is interchangeable—what can be replaced without destabilizing the enterprise—but build what you cannot afford to lose ownership of. Had I internalized this rule earlier in my leadership journey, I would have saved my team a considerable amount of time, energy, and exposure to unnecessary risk. My hope in sharing this reflection is that other founders might learn to ask these questions sooner, before unforeseen constraints silently determine their company’s destiny.
Sourse: https://www.entrepreneur.com/growing-a-business/how-to-decide-what-to-build-vs-outsource-in-5-steps/502362
