Time and materials vs fixed price: which contract type is better for MVP software development?

You’re building an MVP, the scope is moving, and every week brings a new “small change” that suddenly isn’t small. In that reality, the default contract is Time and Materials with hard guardrails, and fixed price fits only when scope is stable and comparable to similar projects. The point is not to “lock certainty” on day one, because software work punishes false certainty. Large IT initiatives average 45% cost overruns and deliver 56% less value than predicted, so founders win by controlling risk, not by trusting labels. Use a not-to-exceed cap as a hard ceiling, run 2-week demos to turn spend into visible progress, demand full visibility (backlog, repo, timesheets, weekly forecast), and add a kill switch that pauses work at pre-agreed thresholds. The model doesn’t fix cost; governance does.

Time and materials vs fixed price: what’s better for building an MVP on a limited budget?

For an MVP, the default choice is time and materials with strict budget guardrails, and fixed price works only when scope is stable and comparable. Software uncertainty is expensive: large IT initiatives average 45% cost overruns and deliver 56% less value than predicted. That is why this contract type decision should focus on controlling total cost while allowing scope changes.

An MVP is a learning product, so the project’s scope changes as you discover what users will pay for. In a fixed price contract, you pay a fixed fee for an exact project scope defined at the beginning. When reality shifts, the agreement changes through change requests, and each scope adjustment becomes a negotiation. This makes learning slower and turns product discovery into paperwork. The McKinsey data shows why founders should plan for variance instead of pretending it will not happen.

Time and materials vs fixed price compares two common contracts, but they differ in when risk ownership is managed. In time and materials contracts, the client pays for hours worked and agreed expenses, so budget control must happen during the development process. In a fixed price model, the service provider prices uncertainty upfront, so the final price includes a buffer time margin. Risk does not disappear; it moves from ongoing steering into upfront pricing and later change requests. In the T&M model, the risk ownership is shared between the augmented staff and the client, fostering a collaborative approach to managing uncertainties.

A simple rule for an early-stage startup with a limited budget is this: choose T&M with guardrails, and choose fixed price only when scope is truly fixed and similar projects exist as a benchmark. If you are building an MVP under scope uncertainty, you need pricing models that let you reprioritize without rewriting the contract after each learning. That is why founders use T&M with caps and clear review cadences instead of relying on “fixed” labels alone. This approach fits situations where product decisions mature during the project, not only at the beginning. The way custom software development engagements are described shows why process and contract structure must accommodate change to protect total cost.

What is a fixed price contract in software development, and what do you actually “fix”?

A fixed price contract fixes scope, acceptance criteria, and price. In FAR 16.202-1, a firm-fixed-price contract puts “maximum risk” and full responsibility for all costs on the contractor, and the final price is not adjusted based on the contractor’s cost experience. However, these contracts often have predetermined team structures, which can limit scalability for changes during the project.

What you actually “fix” is the exact project scope and the definition of “done.” To make parties agree on a fixed fee, you need a scope baseline, clear deliverables, and acceptance criteria that can be tested. The estimate upfront stands on those inputs, not on hope. In a mobile application, “payments implemented” means nothing until you specify if it includes refunds, edge cases, and failure states, because that changes scope and fixed cost. In fixed-price contracts, the client has limited involvement in day-to-day operations and is more focused on milestone reviews, which can streamline oversight but reduce flexibility.

Fixed Price: What You Actually “Fix” (Checklist)

• Fix the scope baseline: list the deliverables and what is explicitly out of scope.
• Fix the acceptance criteria: define pass/fail checks for each key deliverable.
• Fix the definition of “done”: write what “done” means in plain terms for edge cases and failures.
• Fix the change-control path: require a change request for any scope change, with cost and schedule impact stated.
• Fix the price only for that exact scope: the fee covers the agreed scope, not future discoveries.
• Fix who approves: name one decision-maker who signs off on acceptance and change requests.

When project requirements evolve after the beginning, fixed price turns into fixed fee plus change request paperwork. A change request is the mechanism that updates scope and price when the agreement no longer matches reality. Risk premium exists because the service provider prices uncertainty into the fixed price model to protect profit under a flat fee. Work on UX design often converts vague ideas into acceptance criteria, which is the input fixed price contracts require.

Try our developers.
Free for 2 weeks.

No risk. Just results. Get a feel for our process, speed, and quality — work with our developers for a trial sprint and see why global companies choose Selleo.

Test our team Share this offer

What is a time and materials contract, and why do founders fear runaway cost?

Time and materials contracts mean the client pays for effort, so control comes from visibility and budget limits, not from a frozen scope. A standard control is a not-to-exceed (NTE) cap, which NetSuite describes in 2026 as a way to limit spend in time and materials billing. Additionally, this model offers high client control over daily operations and project scope, allowing for active involvement and adjustments as needed.

A time and materials contract bills for hours worked at an hourly rate plus agreed expenses and any materials required. The service provider does not sell a fixed scope in this model. The client pays for work that is actually done, which makes the total price depend on real effort. A contractor runs 20 hours in week one and 40 hours in week two after new tasks enter the backlog, so the invoice changes because the hours change. This model allows for unlimited adaptability in project scope, making it ideal for projects with evolving requirements.

That’s where it gets tricky. The fear of runaway cost comes from weak governance, not from the contract type itself. Timesheets and backlog transparency decide whether the team is moving toward outcomes or just burning hours. If you cannot see burn rate and velocity in plain terms, you cannot predict final cost early. Two teams can log the same hours, but the one that ships a working slice every sprint gives you evidence that spend turns into value.

Control in time and materials contracts comes from budget stops and frequent checkpoints. NetSuite describes not-to-exceed as a practical limit that helps prevent “blank check” billing in time and materials arrangements. An NTE cap is a hard rule: work continues inside the cap, and spend past the cap requires explicit approval. This turns cost control into a decision you make in real time, not a surprise you discover at the end.

Founders still need a delivery setup that makes transparency easy. A software outsourcing company can run T&M safely when you require shared artifacts like timesheets, a visible backlog, and regular demos that tie hours to shipped tasks. The point is simple: T&M pays for effort, and governance converts effort into controlled total price. NetSuite’s 2026 guidance supports the idea that caps are a normal way to add budget certainty to time and materials billing.

Why do software budgets blow up even in “fixed fee” deals? (Scope changes, incentives, and total cost)

Fixed-fee budgets blow up when scope changes hit a contract that prices change as exceptions through change requests, not as normal learning. Large IT initiatives average 45% cost overruns and deliver 56% less value than predicted, so founders must judge the project’s total cost, not the invoice. Fixed fee does not remove uncertainty. Fixed fee relocates it into change cost and quality risk. Additionally, fixed-price contracts can include a risk premium, making the initial price higher than market rates due to contractor protection from overruns.

Most people miss this part: a fixed fee stays “fixed” only for the exact project scope agreed at the beginning. When unexpected changes appear, change requests turn into extra cost or schedule impact, and final cost climbs even though the label says fixed. Risk ownership becomes a dispute about whether something is “new scope” or “implied detail.” A payments feature expands to include refunds and failure handling, so tasks increase and the fixed cost stops matching reality. The McKinsey numbers still matter because incentive and change dynamics in software contracts have not disappeared.

Incentives inside a fixed fee contract can silently convert cost pressure into quality shortcuts. If profit depends on staying under a flat fee, the contractor has two levers: push more work into change requests or reduce testing effort and accumulate technical debt. Acceptance testing is a financial control, because it forces “done” to be measurable and prevents hidden rework later. That is why teams treat test coverage and defect gates as part of scope, not as optional extras. A setup that includes software quality assurance reduces the chance that fixed-fee pressure turns into low-visibility quality loss.

Conflict in sources: a debated claim says Agile projects fail 268% more, but the useful lesson is not “Agile is bad.” The Register reported that 2024 controversy and the pushback around it. The actionable point for founders is requirements clarity at a weekly steering level, because unclear requirements convert into delay, change fees, or technical debt in any contract type. If you cannot define and accept work in small increments, cost returns as time loss, renegotiation, or rework.

How do you control T&M costs without a CTO? (Caps, cadence, visibility, kill switch)

You control T&M costs by adding four guardrails: a not-to-exceed cap, a two-week cadence, full visibility, and a kill switch. NetSuite describes in 2026 that a time and materials contract can use a not-to-exceed (NTE) limit to cap spend and avoid “blank check” billing. This model also provides flexibility in terminating or pausing the contract at any time, giving clients additional control over project direction and budget.

Here’s the thing: the not to exceed clause is the simplest “hard stop” you can buy. It sets a maximum you will pay, even when the development process is flexible. Law Insider defines a time-and-materials capped basis as a structure where total charges are limited by a cap. That makes the rule testable: spend stays inside the cap, or work pauses.

Guardrails checklist (cap, cadence, visibility, kill switch)

• Cap (NTE / not-to-exceed): Set one maximum payable amount and a hard rule: work stops at the cap. Add an escalation trigger at 75–80% of cap usage.
• Cadence (two-week cycle): Run a two-week delivery rhythm with a sprint demo and a go/no-go decision every cycle. No demo means no proof of progress.
• Visibility (proof, not promises): Require a shared backlog, repo access, and timesheets, plus a weekly forecast: burn rate, remaining budget, and forecast-to-cap.
• Kill switch (approval gate): Define that once the threshold is hit (e.g., 75–80% of the cap), work pauses until the named approver explicitly authorizes the next tranche or a scope reset.

Cadence and visibility make overspend visible before it becomes sunk cost. A two weeks sprint demo turns work into evidence you can judge, even without deep technical skills. Repo access and a live backlog link tasks to hours worked and help you see what the project team is doing. A weekly forecast plus burn rate tracking gives you a simple budget trajectory you can read in minutes. You see burn rate at $8k per week and a cap of $40k, so you know you have five weeks of runway inside the cap.

Use a kill switch with decision thresholds, so client involvement becomes a routine, not a crisis. Set an escalation trigger when 75–80% of the cap is used, and require explicit approval to continue past that point. That creates a decision moment while you still have options, not after the cap is already spent. A React development company can work under this model when the team commits to demos, shared artifacts, and clear thresholds. Strong dependency management also reduces hidden work that inflates “more work” hours late in the process.

What should a not-to-exceed clause include in a T&M agreement?

A not-to-exceed clause sets a maximum payable amount and forces explicit approval before spend goes beyond the cap. NetSuite describes in 2026 that time and materials billing can be paired with a not-to-exceed limit to cap spend. Treat it as a pricing contract control, not a polite suggestion.

Start with the cap and the approval gate. Write the cap as a single number and name who can approve any spend beyond it. Define what happens at the cap, because silence creates disputes. The rule should be binary: work continues inside the cap, and work pauses at the cap until approval is given.

Add reporting thresholds and escalation so you see risk early. Set an alert when 70–80% of the cap is used, and require a written escalation at that point. Make the cadence explicit, for example a weekly report with burn rate, remaining budget, and forecast to cap. Define who receives the report and who confirms it, because client involvement is part of cost control. State the decision window, for example approval within two business days, or work stops until approval is granted.

What should you track every week to forecast total cost early?

Track burn rate, delivered outcomes per sprint, and remaining scope risk so you can forecast the project’s total cost before the cap becomes sunk cost. Large IT initiatives average 45% cost overruns, which is why weekly forecasting is a control system, not a status ritual. The goal is to catch drift while you still have options.

Start with the money signal and the delivery signal. Track weekly spend and variance vs your last forecast, and write both numbers down in one place. Track demo outcomes with a simple checklist that names what shipped and what failed acceptance. Burn rate is $8k/week, your forecast says “4 weeks to MVP slice,” but two demos in a row show unfinished work, so the forecast is wrong and the final cost will move.

Track scope risk as a list of open unknowns that can expand the backlog. Write down the top 3 risks, the decision needed, and who owns the decision. Track backlog health by counting blocked items and items that keep rolling over sprint to sprint. Add one QA signal, like critical bugs found in the demo build, because hidden quality issues inflate rework and push up total cost. McKinsey’s 2011 findings still matter because they capture a structural pattern: complex IT work misses budget and value targets at scale.

Author’s perspective

At Selleo, I learned this the hard way on an early MVP engagement. We started with pure time and materials and assumed “we’ll keep an eye on it” was enough. It wasn’t. We had no cap and no weekly forecast, so every new task felt like an open-ended commitment. Cost uncertainty created anxiety on the client side, and that anxiety slowed decisions. The backlog kept moving, but confidence did not.

The fix was not changing the team. It was changing the rules. We switched to capped T&M with a clear not-to-exceed amount, two-week demos, and an explicit kill switch. We added a simple weekly forecast that showed burn rate, remaining budget, and the next decision point. After that, forecasting stabilized and decision latency dropped because conversations became concrete: “approve the next tranche” or “pause and re-scope.”

When does the fixed price model work for an MVP — and what are the hidden costs?

Fixed price can fit an MVP only when deliverables are tightly defined and comparable to similar projects. Large IT initiatives average 45% cost overruns and deliver 56% less value than predicted, so “certainty” is rare when the work is not truly fixed. That is why a fixed fee should be treated as a scope-and-acceptance decision, not a comfort label.

Here’s the thing: the fixed price model works when uncertainty is low and change control stays quiet. Low uncertainty in MVP land means the business can name a small set of deliverables and acceptance tests that prove “done.” If you cannot write acceptance tests in plain language, the provider prices buffer time into the model or turns the project into change requests. That is where hidden costs begin, because time gets spent on negotiation instead of shipping.

Hidden costs show up in three places: buffer time, risk premium, and quality trade-off. Buffer time is built into the price to protect the provider when the entire project has unknowns. Risk premium is the same idea in money form, and it is paid upfront even if risk never materializes. A short scenario table makes the boundary visible:

If a founder still wants fixed, freeze only what can be verified and timebox the rest. Define deliverables, define acceptance tests, and define change control in one page so companies do not argue about what “fixed” means. A fixed model succeeds when it fixes the scope boundary and the acceptance path, not when it pretends the product will not change. Teams building SaaS products still need fast learning cycles, so SaaS development services work best when the MVP scope is explicit and the “unknown” parts are timeboxed instead of priced as infinite change.

Which hybrid pricing models reduce both risks (capped T&M, milestone fixed fee, target cost)?

Hybrids reduce both risks by pricing uncertainty explicitly and keeping a hard budget boundary. NetSuite describes in 2026 that time and materials billing can be paired with a not-to-exceed limit to cap spend. That makes hybrids a practical answer when scope is uncertain but the budget is not.

Capped T&M is the simplest hybrid because it keeps flexibility while protecting the final price. You still pay for real effort, but the pricing contract adds a cap that forces an approval moment. You cap the build phase at $50k and require a written checkpoint at $40k, so the project cannot drift into an “entire project” rewrite. This model fits discovery and early delivery where the backlog evolves.

Milestone-based fixed fee works when you can split work into specific phases with measurable outcomes. The fixed fee applies to a milestone that has acceptance tests, not to a vague promise. A milestone should be a demoable outcome, like “onboarding flow working end-to-end,” not a list of tasks. That creates distinct advantages: the business gets a clear checkpoint, and the provider prices a smaller unit of uncertainty instead of the whole project.

Target cost is a hybrid for teams that want incentive alignment, not only cost control. It sets a target budget and defines how savings and overruns are shared through pain/gain, so both sides care about efficiency. Use OKRs to define what “success” means for the milestone, because target cost needs a shared definition of value to prevent gaming the number. Outcome-based pricing belongs in this family but requires trusted measurement of outcomes, so treat it as a later-stage model once the product metrics are stable. Work that touches AI solutions or regulated learning flows like E-learning software development often benefits from hybrids because discovery and delivery pressure exist at the same time.

How should a founder choose and negotiate the right contract type for an MVP?

Pick the contract type by matching uncertainty to risk ownership and to how much weekly steering you can personally do. Gartner forecasts worldwide IT spending will reach $5.61T in 2025 with 9.8% year-over-year growth, so cost pressure is real and “cheap on paper” is a trap. Your goal is controllable risk, not the lowest headline rate.

Start with a detailed comparison that focuses on mechanics, not marketing labels. You want to see how the agreement handles scope changes, approvals, and acceptance criteria, because that is where budget drift happens. Vendor lock-in drops when you have repo access from day one and a written exit plan that lists what gets handed over and when. This logic applies whether you ship a consumer app via custom mobile app development or a business system like HRM software development.

Negotiate it as a short sequence you can execute without a CTO, and keep every step testable. If you cannot point to the clause that creates control, you don’t have control.

• Choose the model: if project requirements will change, use T&M with a cap; if the project’s scope is stable and comparable, fixed price is viable; if you need both, choose a hybrid.
• Lock visibility: backlog access, repo access, and demo cadence tied to billing.
• Define acceptance criteria for key deliverables and define what counts as a change request.
• Write the exit plan: IP ownership, handover artifacts, and a time window for transition, which matters in regulated work like custom FinTech aoftware development and revenue-critical flows like E-commerce software development.

Now apply decision rules as a coherent narrative, not as vibes. If pivots are expected in the next 4–8 weeks, pick T&M or capped T&M because learning changes scope and a cap blocks runaway spend. If the scope is genuinely repeatable and similar projects exist, fixed price works because deliverables and acceptance can be written precisely.

If you cannot commit to weekly product decisions, avoid pure T&M and use a milestone hybrid, because steering is the control surface. If trust is low, start with a short paid Discovery to test collaboration quality, which is easier to evaluate on concrete delivery than on promises, as shown in the Case Study Selleo Datagame. If Poland/EU “employment optics” matter for your delivery setup, add a short factual appendix note about regulatory volatility and the Jan 2026 suspension update.