The Real Cost of Building an MVP: Managing Expectations and Budget

When a company provider quotes the cost of building an MVP, it’s often perceived as the full price to get a working product that will generate revenue. However, the reality is usually quite different. The quoted cost typically covers the initial development—essentially the coding of the product that the client has in mind—which primarily aims to test a specific hypothesis. In most cases, that hypothesis won’t hold up without adjustments; as experience shows, in 9 out of 10 cases, the hypothesis either partially or fully fails. This requires reworking, refining, or even rebuilding the MVP.

Providers can’t foresee every user flow or predict the exact challenges users might face. They also can’t guarantee that the MVP will work perfectly or even meet user expectations on the first try. That’s why we advise clients to budget at least twice the initial quote. It’s not because we want to inflate costs, but rather to help prevent situations where the project is abandoned halfway due to underestimated expenses.

It’s not uncommon for people to walk away from their projects after substantial investment simply because they hadn’t anticipated the full scope of costs involved. From our perspective, we see clear technical risks that are easier to assess when we initially evaluate the project. For example, projects involving multiple third-party integrations naturally carry higher technical risks—along with other risks that we will address in more detail later.

Bridging the Gap Between Expectations and Reality

Many clients assume that once they pay for an MVP, that’s the final amount needed to achieve a fully functional product. However, an MVP is only a preliminary stage meant to test market assumptions. The goal is to gain real feedback, but this usually uncovers more questions than answers. Rarely does an MVP work flawlessly without any modifications.

This gap between expectations and reality can lead to frustration and unplanned costs. Since a failed hypothesis or market misfit often requires rework, clients need to understand that the MVP stage is not the end—it’s the beginning of a continuous improvement process.

Budgeting With Buffer: Why Planning for Extra is Essential

When budgeting for an MVP, we recommend clients include at least double the quoted cost. This isn’t an overestimation; it’s a safeguard. Initial costs generally cover basic functionality, and any adaptations will require further investment. By planning for extra, clients can prepare for challenges that arise when refining their MVP based on user feedback or shifting market demands.

A simpler project with a clear scope might require a buffer of around 30% above the initial quote. For projects with complex third-party integrations, we suggest setting aside 50–100% more to account for potential risks. This ensures you have the flexibility to handle unexpected technical challenges and avoid the common pitfall of abandoning a project midway due to unforeseen expenses.

Addressing Technical and Business Risks

Technical risks are inherent in almost every project. For instance, a project with multiple external integrations comes with heightened technical risks, as each added feature could introduce complications. Even a “simple” MVP may require extensive debugging or adjustments to make it truly user-friendly and reliable.

Beyond technical risks, there are business risks that clients need to evaluate themselves. For example, studying market trends or potential regulatory changes is crucial for developing an MVP that has a lasting impact. While we can’t manage business risks for clients, we encourage them to carefully assess the competitive landscape, marketing needs, and other market variables that could affect their product’s success.

Support and Further Development: Key to Success

One misconception about MVPs is that they are “complete” products. In reality, MVPs are simply the foundation on which to build. Even after launching a successful MVP, products need consistent technical support, updates, and often a full-scale rework to evolve with user feedback and market demands.

Investing in a well-built MVP from the start minimizes the cost and effort required to maintain it down the line. Attempting to “cut corners” initially often results in a poorly functioning MVP that costs significantly more to support and improve later. An MVP with a weak foundation will require constant troubleshooting, and every minor change may take days instead of hours.

Conclusion

The MVP is just a tiny segment at the beginning of a product’s lifecycle. While clients often think they can stop investing after this initial phase, the reality is quite different. MVPs require ongoing technical support, updates, and potential reworks—these are essential components of a sustainable product.

If your concept is validated and you’re ready to enter the market, don’t skimp on your MVP. Building a strong foundation from the outset will help you avoid costly mistakes in the future. After all, a product that doesn’t evolve with its users will quickly become obsolete.

In the end, investing in a well-planned MVP not only saves time and money but also increases your chances of long-term success in a competitive market. So, plan carefully, budget wisely, and embrace the continuous journey of improvement.