Restaurant app cost: ordering, click & collect and loyalty
10 min read
Key takeaways
- A developer costs, all in, about 1.8 times their gross salary.
- Recruitment itself represents 15 to 25% of the annual salary in the first year.
- An in-house team becomes profitable beyond about 150 development days a year per profile.
- The agency costs more per day but does not bill for the quiet periods, the holidays or the departures.
- The mixed model — an in-house lead, an agency for capacity — often beats both extremes.
"In the long run, it will be cheaper in-house." Perhaps. The calculation deserves to be done in full, because it has six lines that most comparisons forget.
Here is the full costing, without bias — we are an agency, and there are situations where we recommend hiring.
The full cost of an employed developer
Let us take an experienced developer, employed in France, in 2026, and break down what they really cost.
| Item | Order of magnitude |
|---|---|
| Gross salary | Reference base |
| Employer contributions (≈ 42%) | ≈ 42% of gross |
| Equipment, licences, tools | Low |
| Premises, energy, services | Moderate |
| Training, conferences | Low |
| Health insurance, benefits, meals | Moderate |
| Direct cost | ≈ 1.6 × gross |
| Amortised recruitment (18 to 25% in year 1) | Variable |
| Technical management (≈ 10% of a lead) | Variable |
| Full cost | ≈ 1.85 × gross |
Related to the days actually worked — 218 working days, minus holidays, training, non-project meetings and idle time, giving about 190 productive days — the cost of an effective development day climbs well beyond what the salary suggests.
It is this figure, not the gross, that should be compared with an agency's rate.
The line that is always forgotten: management. A lone developer, with nobody to review their code and arbitrate the architecture, produces technical debt that is paid for two years later. If you do not have this profile in-house, you must either hire for it as well, or buy it — and that completely changes the equation.
The cost of an agency
An agency's day rate in France varies by profile and seniority. At first sight, it is more expensive. Except that the scope covered is not the same:
- you only pay for the days consumed, not the gaps between two projects;
- you bear neither holidays, nor sick leave, nor notice periods in case of departure;
- you get access to several specialisms — design, mobile, backend, AI, SEO — without hiring five people;
- replacing a team member is the provider's problem, not yours;
- there is neither recruitment cost, nor risk of a bad hire.
This last point is rarely costed even though it weighs heavily. A failed hire in a technical role costs between six months and a year of fully loaded salary, counting the process, the probation period, taking over the work produced and the new recruitment.
The tipping point
The calculation comes down to a question of volume and regularity.
Below 150 development days a year per profile, the in-house team spends a significant share of its time without useful workload. You then pay a full year for 120 days of value, which means a real cost higher than an agency's.
Beyond 200 days a year per profile, predictably and regularly, in-house becomes clearly more economical, and above all the business knowledge stays in the company.
Between the two, it all depends on your management capacity and the stability of your roadmap.
≈ 1.85×Full annual cost of a developer relative to their gross salary
≈ 190 dGenuinely productive days per year in-house
150–200 dAnnual volume beyond which in-housing becomes profitable
The model that wins most often
Among the companies we work with, the most effective set-up is neither one nor the other.
An in-house technical lead — not necessarily a full-time developer — who understands the architecture, carries the business knowledge, arbitrates priorities and keeps control of the accesses. It is the most profitable role of all, because it eliminates dependence without bearing the cost of a full team.
An agency for capacity and specialisms, mobilised in phases: a development peak, a redesign, an expertise you will never need to have permanently on site.
This set-up typically costs 30 to 40% less than a full in-house team, while avoiding the main risk of total outsourcing.
The three questions to ask before deciding
1. Is the workload steady or in bursts? One project every eighteen months does not justify a permanent team. A product that evolves every week does.
2. Do you have someone to manage? A lone junior developer costs less and produces debt that you will pay for twice over. Without in-house management, you have to buy it.
3. Is the know-how strategic? If your product is your company, the knowledge must end up in-house. If digital serves your business without being your business, managed outsourcing is often the best value-to-risk ratio.
The right question is not "in-house or outsourced". It is "which knowledge must I absolutely keep, and which capacity can I buy when I need it".
Safeguards, whichever you choose
If you outsource, four points must be written down: ownership of the code and accounts, handover documentation, direct access to your hosting, and an identified in-house lead. These four elements cost a few days and remove most of the dependence risk — a subject linked to contract models.
If you bring development in-house, budget for management and training from the first year. That is what distinguishes a team that builds up its skills from a team that accumulates debt.
Sources
- Taux de cotisations (in French) — Urssaf (the French social security contributions agency)
- Article L113-9 - Code de la propriété intellectuelle (in French) — Légifrance
