In today’s digital landscape, the lines between product and marketing have all but disappeared. Your customer’s experience isn’t confined to your app or your ads—it’s everything, everywhere, all at once: the push they receive after signing up, the onboarding flow they complete, the loyalty offer that brings them back. Every interaction is a reflection of your brand and a core part of your product.

That’s why more and more companies find themselves asking: Should we build our own customer engagement platform—or buy one off the shelf?

This isn’t just a question of speed or cost. It’s a question of control, differentiation, and long-term agility. The closer marketing and product become, the higher the stakes are for getting the architecture right. In this article, we’ll break down what’s really involved in building vs. buying — and how to make the choice that aligns with your company’s strategy, scale, and standards for customer experience.

‍

When Building Might Be the Right Choice

Building a custom platform makes sense only under specific conditions:

• Regulatory or Industry-Specific Needs: Heavily regulated sectors (healthcare, finance, government) often require bespoke compliance and security controls.
• Deep Engineering Resources & Long-Term Vision: If your team has extensive, dedicated developer capacity and a clear roadmap for ongoing development, a homegrown solution can be tailored precisely to your evolving needs.
• Unique Business Requirements: When workflows, data governance, or integrations are highly specialized and cannot be met by standard solutions, building may be justified.

Pros:

• Full control over features, integrations, and data governance.
• Ability to craft proprietary, differentiated functionalities.
• Complete oversight of your data—without vendor restrictions.
• Tailor-made architecture aligning with specific compliance and security policies.

Cons:

• Significant upfront costs and complexity—time, talent, and capital.
• Continuous maintenance, upgrades, and security patches.
• Slower time-to-market for new initiatives.
• Risks tied to knowledge silos and staff turnover.

‍

When Buying Might Be Smarter

Out-of-the-box platforms like Braze are designed to accelerate marketing efforts, offering mature, scalable tools that minimize technical debt:

Pros:

• Rapid Deployment: Launch campaigns and features immediately, reducing time-to-market.
• Built-in Security & Compliance: Industry certifications (SOC 2, GDPR) mean less audit burden.
• Continuous Innovation: Regular updates and feature rollouts from dedicated R&D teams.
• Predictable Costs: Subscription models simplify budgeting.
• Focus on Creativity: frees your engineers to innovate on core product features rather than infrastructure.

Cons:

• Less customization—some workflows and niche features may be limited.
• Vendor reliance—product roadmaps are out of your direct control.
• Long-term costs can add up, especially at scale.
• Potential organizational adjustments to new platforms.

‍

The Hidden Cost of Ownership

Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) extends beyond initial expenses. A detailed three-year analysis often shows:

• Building can cost significantly more in ongoing maintenance, refactoring, audits, and opportunity costs.
• Buying can reduce total costs by approximately 50% when accounting for operational overhead, faster time-to-market, and the ability to reallocate engineering talent.

For example, one enterprise client saved over $15 million over three years by choosing Braze instead of building internally—accelerating campaigns and enabling engineering teams to focus on strategic priorities.

‍

Calculating the Total Cost of Ownership

Our interactive TCO Calculator makes it simple to compare the true costs — across 20+ line items including upfront development, ongoing support, compliance, risk, and hidden expenses.

With just a few clicks, you can adjust key assumptions (like scale, advanced requirements, and scenario size), toggle features like HIPAA or real-time data, and instantly see a 3-year cost comparison. Edit any item to reflect your unique situation, and watch category subtotals and grand totals update in real time.

This tool helps brands make confident, data-driven decisions about the investments, risks, and tradeoffs involved with building versus buying a customer engagement platform.

‍

‍

The Evolution: Why the Build vs. Buy Debate Has Changed

For over a decade, the conversation about building versus buying centered on legacy Martech suites like Salesforce, which provided monolithic, all-in-one solutions. While integrated, these suites often meant rigid architectures with limited flexibility, slow innovation cycles, and often bloated feature sets that didn’t always align with modern needs.

Today, the Martech landscape has shifted dramatically with the rise of composable architecture — a modular, flexible approach where best-of-breed tools are connected via APIs into a tailored tech stack. This evolution has transformed the build vs. buy discussion:

• Why composable is a game-changer:
  • Flexibility & Agility: Instead of being locked into a single, monolithic platform, you can mix and match tools tailored precisely to your needs.
  • Faster Innovation: Best-in-class vendors continuously roll out new capabilities without waiting for a giant platform update.
  • Reduced Vendor Lock-In: You control how components fit together and can swap out parts without tearing down the entire system.
  • Cost-Effective Scaling: Buy the right modules for each function, build only where differentiation justifies it, and avoid legacy suite bloat.

This shift towards composable martech allows teams to be inherently more agile, build only what’s truly unique, and leverage proven solutions for core functions —making the buy decision more compelling and strategic than ever.

‍

Real-World Examples

A fintech brand had run into scale issues with their internally-built system — which was becoming a resource drain, hindering their ability to innovate, and slowing the team down. It also required specialized internal talent to leverage, and made it hard to flex agencies in and out of their workstreams as team capacity ebbed and flowed. After an evaluation of multiple tech vendors, they adopted Braze integrated within a composable stack, saving over $15 million and accelerating campaign launch speed while maintaining regulatory compliance.

A global food delivery app had run into limits with their previous ESP, and evaluated building their own internal platform that achieved the scale they needed as they continued to evolve their product experience and deploy billions of highly-personalized, cross-channel messages per day to a global audience. Ultimately, they decided to move to Braze after determining it was able to achieve the scale they needed — and also fostered market agility and required less internal resources to manage. This decision saved them over $5 million dollars and allowed them to continue focusing on up-leveling their business by expanding product capabilities and continuing with global expansion.

‍

Final Thoughts: Making the Right Choice

Today’s landscape offers a much richer set of options than a simple build-or-buy binary. A composable architecture—integrating proven platforms like Braze with custom-built layers—delivers a hybrid approach, combining speed, flexibility, and control.

You should consider building if:

• You operate in highly regulated, niche markets needing bespoke compliance.
• You have substantial engineering resources and a long-term roadmap.
• Your innovation focus is on unique product features rather than marketing infrastructure.

You should consider buying if:

• Rapid deployment, scalability, and continuous innovation are priorities.
• You seek to reduce ongoing operational overhead.
• Your engineering team’s bandwidth is better allocated to strategic growth, not infrastructure maintenance.

By embracing a composable approach, martech leaders can transcend the limitations of legacy suites, reduce total costs, and empower their teams to innovate at speed—making smarter decisions today for a competitive edge tomorrow.

‍