Agency versus IT person.
An AI agency versus a hired in-house IT person — when each one wins.
One option is a salary and months of hiring; the other is a project and a monthly subscription. The choice depends on the number of processes you want to automate, not on the size of the company by itself.
Salary versus project.
An in-house IT person for automation is an employee on a contract of employment, who knows the company from the inside and is available at all times. An AI agency is an outside contractor that steps in for a specific project, delivers a system and maintains it under contract — without being physically on site every day.
The difference is not in the quality of the work by itself, but in the cost model: salary, social contributions and months of hiring, versus a one-off project price and a monthly maintenance subscription. For a company with 10–100 people and no existing IT department, this is a real choice, not a theoretical one.
What costs what, and when it is available.
| Criterion | In-house IT person | AI agency |
|---|---|---|
| Cost | Salary + social contributions, regardless of workload | Project price + monthly subscription, only while the need lasts |
| Hiring | Usually weeks to months for the right profile | A conversation and a start, usually within days |
| Availability | Constant, on site or remote, every day | Within the agreed maintenance scope, not 24/7 by default |
| Scope of knowledge | Deep knowledge of the company, narrower on AI tools | Broader knowledge of AI tools across many companies |
The table simplifies reality — in practice most companies are not comparing two isolated prices, but two different rhythms of work. The salary runs regardless of whether there is an urgent task this week; the project price and subscription follow the actual volume of work done within the agreed scope.
Honestly — the in-house person wins here.
If the automation needs are a steady stream across many departments — invoices today, HR tomorrow, a new internal tool the day after — a hired employee who is always available and knows the company from the inside usually comes out cheaper per year than a series of separate projects. It also wins when the company already has an IT department and is simply adding a skill, not building from scratch.
An in-house person also wins when decisions need daily presence and a quick response to small, varied requests — a different work model from a project contract with a fixed scope.
When the project is the cheaper path.
For a company with 1–3 specific processes to automate — for example invoices, warehouse or reports — hiring a permanent employee for that task is usually overcapacity: you pay a salary for 12 months a year for work that is really done in the first two. An AI agency delivers the project and then maintains only what it built, for a monthly subscription proportional to the volume of work.
The agency also wins when you are looking for broader knowledge of AI tools across different companies — something a lone in-house employee finds it hard to build up without access to multiple projects. For an example of what a specific project looks like, see Reports.
The middle path for 10–100 people.
Many companies in this range benefit from a hybrid: an agency for implementing each process, and an in-house person — often already in another role — for the daily review of flagged cases and liaison with the team. This spreads the cost between a one-off project and a small, predictable monthly sum, instead of relying on one model entirely.
The AI audit shows specifically which of the two models — or the hybrid — fits your volume of processes, before you hire anyone or sign a contract. See the AI audit.
What it looks like in practice.
2 departments
A 35-person company is weighing hiring a junior IT specialist to automate invoices and reports. Conversations with candidates show a salary plus contributions comparable to a project price for both processes — but only for the first year; once both processes are implemented, the real day-to-day work drops to a small fraction of full-time hours. The company chooses an agency for the project and leaves an already-hired in-house employee to handle the review of flagged cases.
The numbers above are illustrative. The real balance depends on the number of processes the company plans to automate over the next 12 months, not just the current two.
Honest about the conflict of interest.
auwo sells project implementations and monthly maintenance — in other words, one side's product in this comparison. So the numbers above are indicative ranges, not an offer, and are worth checking against your own conversations with candidates for an in-house role before you decide. If you are still not sure which model your case leans towards, the AI audit gives a written, choice-independent card — see what is an AI audit.
What people usually ask.
Is an agency cheaper than a hired IT person?
For 1–3 specific processes — usually yes. For a steady stream of needs across several departments, a hired employee is often cheaper per year.
Can we combine both models?
Yes — a common hybrid is an agency for implementation and an in-house person for daily review and liaison with the team.
How quickly does an agency project start compared with hiring?
An agency project usually starts within days of a conversation. Hiring the right in-house profile takes weeks to months.