Article
€50,000 Quote vs. Two Hours with Claude Code
One hour. Fifty-five minutes.
That is how long it took to build what a Czech software firm had quoted at over €50,000. I built it with Claude Code.
A working tool — the one the company needed. By evening, it was running on staging.
THE €50,000 QUOTE FOR A SIMPLE PILOT
The task came from our CEO. A tool that our customers would interact with directly on the website. The scope was specific enough to define. Not trivial — but also not an engineering mystery.
I took over the conversation with one Czech software firm. Colleagues had started it but did not have the capacity to continue.
I asked for a rough idea of price and timeline. Not a binding quote. A range. Enough to plan.
Their reply was a single sentence I will not forget:
"We cannot give you an estimate — not even a rough one."
For a rough estimate, they explained, they would first need to conduct a paid analysis. Two and a half thousand euros. To examine the problem properly.
I did not take the analysis.
ONE AND A HALF PERSON-MONTHS — FOR WHAT
Later in the conversation — without the paid analysis — the number slipped out anyway.
Roughly one and a half person-months of work. Somewhere above €50,000 to launch a simple pilot.
A simple pilot.
For over fifty thousand euros.
Five years ago, I would have taken the quote to our two CEOs. We would have weighed it against an off-the-shelf product and its limitations.
There is a third option now.
BUILDING IT WITH CLAUDE CODE IN UNDER TWO HOURS
I walked into the IT meeting with a short presentation. I had mapped the options — build with the external firm we had already been talking to, or build it ourselves with an AI coding agent.
That same afternoon, I built it.
The development did not need iteration cycles. The agent proposed a plan, started implementing, and within the first few minutes something was already working. The rest was refinement. Adding features. Tightening behaviour. Then handling the edge cases I noticed as I tested.
The only thing I brought to that build was a clear idea of what the tool was supposed to do.
Not a specification. Not an architecture diagram. Just a clear idea.
That turned out to be enough.
In Is AI Making Us Dumber? I described interview candidates who came in with polished AI outputs they could not defend — outputs built on problems they had not understood. They had delegated the thinking before they had done it. This project worked because I had done the opposite. I knew what the tool needed to do. The agent did the rest.
WHAT SOFTWARE AGENCIES ARE REALLY CHARGING FOR
I want to be careful here.
Join the Library
Full access to my thoughts, personal stories, findings, and what I learn from the people I meet.
Join the Library — €29.99 per yearGet the full article by email and feel free to reply if you want to discuss it further.
Summary
Common questions on this article's topic
How much does a software agency charge for a custom web tool?
Can you build a customer-facing web tool with Claude Code?
What can AI coding agents replace — and what can they not?
Are software agencies losing business to AI agents?
What is Claude Code and who is it for?
If you have any thoughts, questions, or feedback, feel free to drop me a message at mail@richardgolian.com.
Related articles
Four days in Catalonia. No computer, no AI, almost no social media. I bought this notebook so that I could write down what I would think about, and what I would come across and learn on the trip.
I am building an AI system to predict the S&P 500. It runs on my own machine, uses free public data — yfinance, FRED, the Shiller dataset — and grades every forecast against reality. This series documents the build itself: the decisions, the methodology, the mistakes. What I will eventually share from the running system is a separate question, and an honest one.
Yesterday I could not tear myself away from the computer. When I lifted my head, it was half past eight in the evening. I had been sitting alone upstairs for about three hours.
More articles
Prague, 13 May 2026. On my way to work I started thinking about something that stayed with me for days. If most routine work on a computer disappears in the next ten years, and a large share of repetitive manual work disappears with it, what happens to the flow of money? Who pays whom for what? Which economic layers will exist, how large will they be, and what relationships will run between them? This is the six-layer map I sketched as an answer.
Will AI take my job? A certified Google trainer told me in June 2024 that my profession would cease to exist. Twenty-two months later, my job title has not changed — but ninety percent of what I do during the day is different. I have delegated more of my thinking to AI agents than I thought possible. I am not afraid. This is why, and what it means for anyone asking the same question.
I have conducted roughly one hundred and fifty practical interviews over the past four years. Fifty for data specialist roles. A hundred for advertising and performance marketing specialists. Almost every one of them involved sitting down with a candidate over a practical task — something close to a real problem we actually need to solve at the company. Not theory. Not trivia. Applied problem-solving. Over time, I started noticing a pattern.
Before you can teach AI to understand anything, you need to see what it is hiding from you.
The moment other people needed access to it, the problem changed completely. It was no longer about whether the agent could learn. It was about who gets to teach it.
I wanted to build an agent that doesn't just assist. One that acts.
This is what I learned about local vs cloud AI, and why I switched to Claude Code.
What happened — and how can it be reversed?