You're a non-technical founder. You've described your product to three development studios. Each one sent back a proposal. And now you're sitting there with three documents that use different terminology, different structures, and different pricing models, trying to figure out which one is honest.
This is one of the highest-stakes decisions you'll make early on, and you're making it with the least information. You can't evaluate the technical quality of what's being proposed. You don't know whether the timeline is realistic or padded. You can't tell if the tech stack they've chosen is sensible or just whatever the team already knows.
We're a studio. We write these proposals. And we're going to tell you exactly how to read them, including the things studios don't want you to notice.
The timeline section
Every proposal has a timeline. "8 to 12 weeks" or "3 to 4 months" or a Gantt chart with color-coded phases.
The first thing to check: does the timeline include discovery? A studio that jumps straight to "Week 1: Development begins" hasn't spent time understanding your product. They're pricing based on their interpretation of a brief conversation or a document you sent over. That interpretation is guaranteed to be incomplete.
A good timeline has a discovery or scoping phase at the beginning. Usually one to two weeks. During this phase, the studio actually maps out the features, user flows, and technical requirements before committing to a development timeline. Studios that skip this are guessing, and their guess will be wrong.
The second thing to check: does the timeline account for your involvement? Every product build requires decisions from the founder. Design approvals, copy reviews, priority calls when scope needs to change. If the timeline assumes you'll respond to every question within 24 hours and approve every design within two days, it's optimistic. If you have a full-time job or other commitments, ask the studio what happens when your response time is a week instead of a day. If the answer is "the timeline slips," that's fine. If they haven't thought about it, that's a red flag.
The third thing: look at how testing and deployment are handled in the timeline. If the last week is labeled "Testing and Launch" and everything before it is development, they're planning to test at the end. This means bugs discovered in that final week either delay the launch or ship with the product. Good proposals have testing integrated throughout, not crammed into the final sprint.
The tech stack section
You don't need to understand the technologies listed. You need to ask one question: "Why did you choose this stack for my specific product?"
If the answer is "Because that's what we work with," that's honest but potentially problematic. It means they're fitting your product to their capabilities rather than choosing the best tool for the job. Sometimes their stack is the right choice. Sometimes it's not.
If the answer connects platform choices to your product's specific needs, that's better. "We're recommending Next.js because your product is content-heavy and SEO matters for your user acquisition strategy." That's a studio thinking about your product, not just their workflow.
A few things to watch for:
If a proposal mentions Kubernetes, microservices, or complex infrastructure for a product that doesn't have users yet, be skeptical. These are tools for scale, and you don't have scale. You have an idea. The infrastructure should match the stage. We've written about why MVPs don't need microservices in detail.
If the stack has more than five or six core technologies, ask why. Complexity in the stack means complexity in maintenance. A simple product shouldn't need eight different services to run.
If you can't find any mention of hosting or deployment, ask about it. Where will this thing actually live? Who pays for the servers? How does code go from the developer's laptop to the live application?
The deliverables list
This is the section that varies the most between proposals and where the most confusion lives.
Read the deliverables carefully and ask: what is NOT on this list?
Most proposals include the application itself and maybe the source code. But check for these commonly omitted items.
Documentation. Will you receive documentation explaining how the application works, how to deploy it, and how to make basic changes? If the studio gets hit by a bus (or you simply decide to switch studios), can another engineer pick up the codebase and understand it?
Source code and intellectual property. This should be explicitly stated. You should own the code. Some studios retain ownership of the code and license it to you. Others use frameworks or boilerplate they've built across clients and only transfer the custom parts. Ask directly: "Do I own 100% of the source code, and can I take it to another developer after this engagement?"
Environments. Will you get a staging environment where you can test changes before they go live? Or only a production environment? Testing in production is fine for a weekend project. It's unacceptable for a business.
Admin functionality. Can you manage users, view data, and make basic configuration changes without calling the developer? If the proposal doesn't mention an admin panel and your product has users, ask about it.
Analytics and monitoring. Will you know if the application crashes at 2am? Or will you find out from a user complaint the next morning? Basic error tracking and uptime monitoring should be standard.
The pricing model
There are three common models. Each has tradeoffs.
Fixed price means the studio quotes a total cost for the defined scope. You pay that amount regardless of how long it takes. The advantage is predictability. The disadvantage is that studios protect themselves by padding the estimate or cutting corners if the project runs long. Fixed price also creates tension around scope changes. If you want to add a feature mid-project, the studio will charge extra because the original price was calculated for the original scope.
Time and materials means you pay for hours worked. Usually billed weekly or bi-weekly. The advantage is flexibility. Scope can change without renegotiating the whole contract. The disadvantage is that you're absorbing the risk. If the project takes longer than expected, you pay more. You also need to trust that the team is working efficiently because you're paying for their time regardless of output.
Hybrid means some combination: a fixed price for a defined initial scope, then time and materials for iteration and changes. This is what we use most often because it gives both sides something predictable to anchor on, while accommodating the reality that every project changes during development.
None of these models is inherently better. What matters is that you understand which one you're agreeing to and what happens when the project goes over the estimated timeline. We've written about what MVPs typically cost with specific dollar ranges for each tier if you want benchmarks.
Red flags that should make you walk away
No discovery phase. If a studio quotes a fixed price from a one-page brief or a 30-minute call, they're guessing. And their guess is either too low (to win the deal) or too high (to cover their uncertainty).
They can't explain the timeline. "It'll take about three months" is not a timeline. A timeline explains what happens in each phase and why it takes that long. If the studio can't articulate why design takes two weeks and authentication takes one week, they haven't planned the work carefully.
Everything is "easy" and "straightforward." If a studio describes your product as simple and promises a fast delivery with no complications, they either don't understand the scope or they're telling you what you want to hear. Building software is never straightforward. A studio that acknowledges complexity is more honest than one that dismisses it.
They won't provide references. Any established studio should be able to connect you with two or three past clients who can speak to the experience. Not just the output. The experience. Was the communication clear? Did the timeline hold? How were problems handled?
The proposal has no mention of what happens after launch. Software needs maintenance. Bugs appear. Users find edge cases. Servers need updates. If the proposal ends at "delivery" with no mention of what comes next, ask about it. A studio that plans for post-launch support is thinking about your success, not just the project.
The single most important question
After you've read the proposal, ask the studio this:
"What's the most likely reason this project would take longer than you've estimated?"
A good studio will give you a specific, honest answer. "Scope changes during development." "Waiting on third-party API documentation." "Design revisions take longer than planned." These are real risks and naming them means the studio has thought about them.
A bad studio will say "It shouldn't" or "We've accounted for everything." That's either naive or dishonest. Neither is what you want from a team building your product.
We write proposals like this every month. If you want to see what an honest one looks like, send us your brief and we'll put one together.