The question is duration, not cost.

Start with how long it actually runs

Most organizations approach this as a cost comparison and get a misleading answer, because the two structures price differently rather than one being cheaper. A monthly rate and a one-time fee are not comparable numbers without a duration attached.

The honest first question is whether the work is genuinely finite. If the answer is “probably permanent,” a direct hire is the right instrument and a co-managed engagement will be an expensive way of arriving there later.

If the answer is a defined period — eighteen months on a migration, a programme with an end date — then hiring permanently is the wrong instrument, and the employment administration is disproportionate to the engagement length.

Where the employment risk sits

On Co-Managed, Lumensoft is the employer and carries payroll, benefits, HR and performance accountability. You direct the technical work and own the output, exactly as with your own staff. If performance falls below the engagement standard, that is ours to resolve rather than a contract you have to unwind.

On Dedicated, the employment relationship is yours from day one, and so is the administration. The one-time fee reflects that there is no ongoing rate, because you employ the engineer.

Conversion between them is possible by mutual agreement after a defined period, with terms set in the original statement of work rather than negotiated under pressure later. That is worth settling upfront even if you do not expect to use it.

Questions that settle it

The last question is the one most often skipped and most often decisive. A 7-day shortlist against a six-week access-provisioning process does not produce an engineer working in week two, and knowing that upfront changes what you should commit to.