Founders tend to frame this as a hiring question. It’s not. It’s a throughput question.
If you’re building a SaaS product, for example, you can read ten blog posts about “design best practices” and still ship a site that doesn’t convert, doesn’t scale, and can’t be iterated on without breaking something. What you actually need in that phase is SaaS web design that supports growth loops—meaning: a system that makes experiments cheap, messaging changes fast, and new pages predictable instead of bespoke.
That’s the context for the real decision: do you want one person tightly embedded in your team, or a cross-functional unit optimized to ship outcomes?
What You Really Get With an In-House Web Designer
An in-house designer is best at two things: context and continuity.
They sit close to the product. They hear support pain in real time. They internalize the roadmap. They can iterate quickly on small changes because they don’t need a brief, a kickoff, and a handoff.
That tight loop is valuable when your work is mostly incremental:
Refining messaging week by week
Keeping brand consistency across new pages
Improving UI polish inside an existing system
Supporting product launches with fast updates
This is the “keep the machine running” profile.
The limitation is that a single designer is exactly that: a single set of skills, a single bandwidth ceiling, and often a single viewpoint. Once your growth depends on coordinated work across performance, CRO, UX research, technical constraints, and engineering realities, the in-house model either expands into a team—or turns into a bottleneck.
That bottleneck rarely looks dramatic. It looks like slow iteration cycles, shallow testing, and a backlog that never gets smaller.
What an Agency Brings That In-House Teams Usually Can’t
A competent agency is not “a designer who works remotely.” It is a package of specialization and repeatable execution.
The practical advantage isn’t aesthetics. It’s pattern recognition and cross-functional coverage: designers who already think in components, developers who build for performance by default, researchers who know how to reduce uncertainty before pixels are pushed.
That matters most when your site must do complicated business work, like guiding multiple stakeholders through a buying process. If you’re selling B2B, you’re not optimizing for vibe. You’re optimizing for clarity, trust signals, and frictionless conversion paths—which is why teams often seek B2B web design built around decision journeys rather than “a nicer homepage.”
The downside is not quality. It’s integration: agencies need good inputs, clear ownership, and a decision maker who can keep priorities stable. Without that, even strong agencies end up stuck in revision loops.
The Growth-Focused Breakdown
Here’s the simplest way to compare them: what happens when growth demands speed plus depth?
Speed to meaningful output
In-house wins for small, frequent changes once they’re ramped up.
Agency wins when you need a running start: a team that can ship a coherent system quickly.
Depth of optimization
In-house designers can be excellent, but rarely cover CRO, performance, and UX research at expert level simultaneously.
Agencies are built for coverage. That’s the whole point.
Scalability
In-house often builds for “now,” especially under deadline pressure.
Agencies tend to build for extension: components, rules, and systems that survive new pages and new products.
The Real Cost Comparison (The Part People Avoid)
The in-house cost is not just salary.
It’s hiring time, ramp time, replacement risk, and the opportunity cost of slower experimentation. A $90K designer who becomes a bottleneck can cost more than a higher-priced option that accelerates iteration and learning.
The agency cost is not just the retainer.
It’s also management overhead, the need for good briefs, and sometimes paying for capability you don’t fully use if your workload becomes mostly maintenance.
The cost question only makes sense when tied to output: are you buying production capacity, or growth velocity?
When In-House Makes Sense
In-house works well when:
You have an established design system and need steady execution.
Your web work is mostly incremental (updates, launches, page extensions).
You have other growth capabilities in-house (CRO, analytics, performance).
You need constant micro-iteration tightly coupled to internal decisions.
In short: when the problem is continuity more than transformation.
When Agencies Win (Consistently)
Agencies outperform when the work is structural:
Redesigns tied to positioning, conversion, and performance
Scaling from a handful of pages to a system
Rebrands that must translate into information architecture and UX logic
Complex funnels that require research, testing, and cross-discipline execution
A useful way to understand the scope here is to look at what a true multi-surface redesign entails—product + web + onboarding + transition management. The Select redesign case is a good example of the kind of work that typically exceeds what a solo in-house designer can realistically execute without a supporting team.
The Hybrid Model Most Teams End Up Using
The common high-growth pattern is: one internal owner, one external execution engine.
In-house holds context, brand guardrails, and day-to-day prioritization. The agency runs structured sprints: system building, funnel optimization, performance work, and high-impact redesign initiatives.
This model avoids the two classic failures:
“All in-house” turning into a bottleneck.
“All agency” turning into a detached vendor relationship.
Final Verdict
Control feels safe. Velocity drives growth.
Ask one question: Which setup gets us to measurable outcomes faster—without creating a long-term bottleneck?
If your website is a living growth surface, the answer is rarely about preference. It’s about throughput, expertise coverage, and how quickly you can turn insight into shipped change.
Comments