You already have the strategy and the brand. What you need is someone to ship. The usual options are a full agency, slow and layered, or a freelance developer, cheap until you become the project manager. Studio sits between them. Here's the honest breakdown.
An agency gives you a team you don't need. A freelancer gives you a second job. Studio gives you the work, shipped.
If you've ever sat in a status meeting watching an account manager paraphrase your own decisions back to you, you know the tax an agency puts on simple web work. It's built for always-on, multi-channel marketing. For "three landing pages by Friday", it's the wrong shape and the wrong price.
A freelance developer fixes the price, but hands you the management. Now you're writing the brief, chasing progress, checking the quality and carrying the risk that the good contractor was busy and you got the other one.
Studio is one senior operator who takes your strategy and ships it properly, fast, at a fixed price, with no one in between. Here's how the three compare, and when an agency or a freelancer is genuinely the better call.
This page goes deeper than most comparison pages, on purpose. Whichever route you pick, you're committing budget and time you can't easily claw back if it turns out to be the wrong shape for the job. So below you'll find a proper side-by-side, a short tool to help you work out which option actually fits your brief, and a calculator that puts real numbers next to your own numbers rather than asking you to trust ours.
None of what follows is trying to talk you out of an agency or a freelancer where either is genuinely the better fit. It's trying to save you a wasted quarter.
Four quick questions. No email address required, just an honest answer to each.
Each option isn't a worse or better version of the other two. They're built to optimise for different things, and that's usually why the wrong choice for your brief isn't a quality problem, it's a shape problem.
An agency is built to optimise for retained revenue across a whole marketing programme: campaigns, creative, paid media, social, web, all under one contract that renews. That's genuinely valuable if you need a team owning all of that continuously. It also means a single web build gets priced and staffed the same way ongoing work does, with account management, planning cycles and sign-off layers that exist to serve the retainer, not your one project.
A freelance developer is built to optimise for the lowest unit cost of pure execution. No overhead, no layers, just someone building what you tell them to build. That's exactly right when your spec is tight and complete. It gets expensive in a different currency, your time, the moment the brief needs judgement calls rather than instructions, because now you're the one making them.
Studio is built to optimise for judgement at a fixed price: one senior person who's built enough of these to know what actually matters, doing the work directly rather than briefing someone junior to do it, for a number agreed before anything starts. That's the right shape when the thinking is largely done and what's missing is someone senior enough to ship it well, fast, without you managing them.
You already have the strategy and the brand. The question is who ships it. Both the agency and the freelancer are the right answer for some briefs, and we say which below.
| Full agency | Freelance developer | Zenlio StudioSenior, direct | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Who does your work | A team, with account managers between you and the build. | One developer, often mid-level, that you brief and manage. | One senior operator. Twenty years across Joblogic, Dropbox, Oracle and ServiceNow. |
| Cost model | Retainers and scopes that tend to pad out. | Day rate. Cheap until it overruns. | Fixed price per engagement. From £750 a page. |
| Speed | Weeks to months. Kick-off decks first. | Depends who you got and how booked they are. | Three landing pages by Friday, if that's the brief. |
| Strategy vs execution | Often charges to redo strategy you already have. | Executes your spec exactly, nothing more. | Takes your strategy, adds the craft, ships it. |
| Who project-manages | They do, and you pay for it. | You do. You're the PM now. | I do. You get your time back. |
| Quality bar | Varies with whoever's assigned. | Varies widely. | Senior hands every time. No junior handoff. |
| Escaping a rigid CMS | A big project with a big quote. | Maybe, if they know the platform. | A core service. Replatform from £150 to £300 a page. |
| Tells you when it's a bad idea | Rarely. Scope is revenue. | Not really their job. | Yes. I'll tell you when you don't need me. |
Cost is the row most worth putting real numbers against, rather than taking on trust. Here's a calculator that does exactly that, using our rates next to yours.
Competitor pricing reflects publicly reported UK figures at the time of writing and varies by trade, plan and location.
Pick the engagement, adjust the numbers, and compare against your own estimate for a freelancer, or a quote you've already had from an agency. The Studio figures are our actual fixed rates. The other two are yours to fill in, because we're not going to hand you a number for what someone else would charge you.
This is a guide, not a quote. Every Studio engagement gets a fixed price agreed before any work starts, and it doesn't move once agreed unless the scope does. The freelance and agency figures are whatever you put in; nothing's been assumed on your behalf.
Studio isn't the right tool for every job. Here's when to pick one of the others.
You don't yet have the strategy or brand, or you need always-on media, creative and production across channels. That's a real, ongoing job, and it's not one Studio does. If you need a partner to own marketing, an agency is right. That kind of continuity and channel breadth is a genuinely different job to a web build, and paying a team to own it properly is the right call, not a compromise.
The spec is tight, technical and repeatable, and you genuinely have time to manage it. If you know exactly what you want built and just need hands on a keyboard, a good contractor is cheaper than me. Just budget your own time into the true cost, because briefing, chasing and quality-checking a build is real work even when it isn't on the invoice.
The thinking's done and you need it shipped properly and fast, by one senior person who won't hand it to a junior or pad the invoice. Craft, speed, or a clean way off a CMS you've outgrown. If none of that applies, the honest answer might be one of the other two, and this page exists to help you tell which.
Same senior pair of hands across all three. No agency layers, no junior-led delivery, no padded retainer.
Campaigns, launches, market tests, A/B experiments. From £750 a page, packs of three to five for £2,500 to £5,000. Live in five to seven working days. Good for testing a new offer, launching a campaign fast, or getting a handful of pages live without opening a full rebuild.
Escape a rigid CMS, a dated site or platform lock-in. £150 to £300 a page, or £3k to £15k+ per project, over three to eight weeks. You keep your rankings and your content, and you lose the rigid system that's been slowing every change down.
Meaningful rebuilds, repositionings and strategic resets. £8,000 to £20,000, the sweet spot for most rebuilds rather than a hard ceiling, over six to twelve weeks, with a senior operator on it start to finish. Small, focused rebuilds sit at the lower end; multi-site or multi-brand work sits higher, scoped properly before a number's agreed.
No forty-page discovery deck. A short, focused process that gets to a fixed price and a real plan fast.
Not a sales call. We go through what you're trying to achieve, what's working on the current site, what isn't, and what "done" looks like. Usually sixty to ninety minutes.
You get a written scope, a fixed price and a realistic timeline, normally within a few working days. Nothing added later unless the scope changes, and if it does, you'll know before it happens.
Work starts on an agreed date. You see progress as it happens, not at a single big reveal at the end, so you can flag anything early rather than living with it.
The calls started coming from old colleagues. CMOs needing a landing page shipped fast. Marketing leads stuck on a rigid CMS. People who didn't want an agency, but did need a senior pair of hands. That became Zenlio Studio. I've spent twenty years on both sides of the table, most recently taking a Joblogic conversion rate from 3% to 17.5%. That's the thinking that goes into the work, not junior guesswork.
The longer version of this argument: what each option is really selling, and how to pick per piece of work instead of once and forever.
No layers. With an agency, the person who scopes your work usually isn't the person who does it, and there's an account manager in between. With Studio you get one senior operator doing the work and answering the phone, at a fixed price rather than a retainer that pads out. Agencies are the right call for always-on, multi-channel marketing. Studio is for shipping web work well and fast.
If your spec is tight and you have time to manage it, do. A good contractor is cheaper than me for pure execution. The difference is that you become the project manager, and the quality varies a lot. Studio takes the management off your plate and brings twenty years of judgement, not just hands on a keyboard. You're paying for the decisions, not only the build.
It depends on the engagement. Sprint work is from £750 a page, with packs of three to five pages at £2,500 to £5,000. Replatforming runs £150 to £300 a page, or £3k to £15k+ for a full project. A Strategy and Build runs £8,000 to £20,000, the sweet spot for most rebuilds, not a ceiling. Very small jobs can land under that with a Sprint or a small Replatform instead, and very large, multi-site rebuilds can run beyond it once we've scoped the full picture. Every number is fixed and agreed up front, not a retainer that grows.
A Sprint is five to seven working days. If you need three landing pages by Friday to test a market or launch a campaign, that's the whole reason Sprint exists. Bigger rebuilds take longer, but you'll get a real timeline up front, not a moving one.
Yes. Replatforming is a core service, whether you're stuck on a rigid system where every change needs a developer ticket, or a dated site that's been patched for five years. We move you across cleanly, page by page, without losing your rankings.
Dan does, with selected specialists brought in only where it genuinely helps. No junior handoff, no team of account managers, no learning on your budget. The person you brief is the person who builds it.
It shouldn't, because the price and scope are fixed before anything starts, not estimated as you go. If the brief genuinely grows once work is underway, say you decide you want three more pages once you've seen the first ones, that gets scoped and costed as its own addition, and you'll know the number before it happens, not after. You won't get a surprise invoice at the end, and you won't get charged extra for things that were part of the original scope simply because they took longer than expected. That risk sits with Studio, not you.
Plenty of Sprint clients come back for another one when the next campaign or product launch needs shipping, and there's no obligation to commit to anything beyond the piece of work in front of you. If what you actually need is different, an always-on presence across paid, social and content that never really stops, that's genuinely an agency's job. It's better to say that upfront than stretch a one-off Sprint into a retainer relationship that isn't really what it's built for.
You do, outright, once it's paid for. There's no license fee to keep using what you commissioned, no proprietary platform that only Studio can touch, and nothing held back. It's the same principle as hiring an in-house developer to build something for you: you paid for it, it's yours, and what you do with it afterwards is entirely up to you.
It's a fair question to ask anyone before handing over a fixed sum, and most people don't ask it. Studio deliberately doesn't overbook the calendar, so there's genuine buffer built into every timeline rather than everything scheduled back to back. Code and content live in a proper repository from day one rather than on a single laptop, so the work itself isn't trapped anywhere. It hasn't come up so far, and the business is deliberately run in a way that's built to keep it that way.
A reasonable round of revisions is priced into every engagement from the outset, so refining copy, adjusting a layout or tightening up a section isn't an extra fee. What's different is a genuinely different project wearing the same invoice, deciding halfway through that you want five more pages, a different platform, or a new section of the site entirely. That gets scoped and priced as its own piece of work, agreed with you before it starts, never billed after the fact as a line you didn't see coming.
Yes, and it's a fairly normal shape of engagement. Your agency keeps running the ongoing marketing, the campaigns, the paid media, the always-on content, and Studio ships a specific piece of web work that doesn't need a full agency process wrapped around it: a landing page pack for a launch, a replatform, a focused rebuild. The work is built from your existing brand and brief either way, and there's no need to be the only person involved in how you get things done.
Whatever suits the brief and what your team can realistically maintain afterwards, not whatever's quickest to reach for. Fast, lean, static-style builds for most Sprint and campaign work, where nobody needs to log in and edit copy weekly. A proper CMS where your team genuinely needs to update content themselves. The stack is agreed while scoping the project, not after the build has already started, so you're never handed something obscure that only one developer in the country happens to know.
Yes, that's built in rather than an afterthought. Nothing's structured to be dependent on one person: clean code, a sensible file and content structure, and documentation of anything that isn't self-explanatory. If you hire in-house later, or want a different developer to pick up the next phase, they should be able to get up to speed without a long, expensive handover process eating into your budget.
With a working conversation rather than a sales pitch, usually sixty to ninety minutes on what you're trying to achieve, what the current site is and isn't doing for you, and what a good outcome actually looks like. From there you get a written scope, a fixed price and a realistic timeline, normally within a few working days, not weeks of back and forth. Work starts on an agreed date, and you see progress as it happens rather than waiting for one big reveal at the end of six weeks.
It means the person who scoped your project is the person building it, so nothing gets lost in translation to someone more junior along the way. Practically, it means fewer, better decisions: not defaulting to whatever pattern is trendy this year because it's trendy, knowing which corners are genuinely safe to cut on a five-day Sprint and which aren't, and catching the thing that'll cause a problem in six months before it ever gets built in. Twenty years across Joblogic, Dropbox, Oracle and ServiceNow is where that judgement comes from, not a weekend course.
One senior pair of hands, a fixed price, and no one in between. Start with a conversation, or book a call to talk through the brief.
See exactly how your current site, or the option you're leaning toward, measures up. Free, no signup, before you decide.
Already have a site? Score whoever built it against what a good provider should deliver.
Take the scorecard →