The decision to start a crowdfunding portal project can be difficult. Most organizations who want to establish access to new capital via the web, showcase their deal flow, and streamline the investment process, also wish to avoid becoming a technology company in the process. Furthermore, portal owners want the ability to maintain control over their own investor experience, promote their brand, oversee the accreditation process, limit investor data access, and manage their own specific compliance standards and guidelines.

With such a comprehensive list of requirements, many believe that building their own technology platform to be the only viable solution to solve the requirements above. However, a rare few come to terms with the reality of their technical limitations before it’s too late. This article explores the costs and options of building your own solution, and why CrowdEngine is the ideal alternative.

CrowdEngine was architected and developed specifically to solve all these requirements while remaining an easy to use, out-of-the-box robust enterprise crowdfunding solution. Now portal owners can keep control of all the key aspects of their business, while still differentiating themselves in the marketplace.

With CrowdEngine’s creative flexibility, nearly any brand and site can be effectively represented on a portal. Portal owners no longer have to become technology experts to showcase their deals and provide their investors with a premier user experience. Because each portal owner can manage their compliance and accreditation standards, they need not worry about varying legal opinions different from their own in their chosen jurisdiction(s). Portal owners are not subject to different legal opinions counter to their specific offering type or business model.

For the skeptics who still remain curious whether building is better than buying, let’s dig deeper. Any crowdfunding real estate and private equity groups who choose to build their own technology will need to accomplish all the aforementioned technical requirements while controlling their operational costs. Further consideration should be made for the opportunity cost caused by the delay of entering the market to establish market share. The longer the delay, the greater the cost.

Those who “buy” with the intent to win the race for a market position will enjoy a noticeable competitive edge, while those who “build” will be halted in their path by the often overwhelming task of managing both a tech startup and an investment firm. Moreover, the cost to maintain what is eventually built must be accurately projected. Companies that are budget conscious must control their build expense in addition to the operational costs once the solution is live. Given that typical equity groups are not familiar with technological development, they stand at an extreme disadvantage in accurately projecting development and maintenance costs.

If costs are absent from the decision-making process, one should also consider their ability and experience for managing technical resources.  Technical teams, including developers, engineers, and support technicians, are dynamically different from deal makers. Their workflow, thought process, and attitudes are unique. Without the experience or knowledge to properly hire or manage said expertise, nor the insight to properly spec. the required solution after the hire is made, the project becomes cripplingly expensive. As mentioned above, the time lost during this process can make the difference between a successful venture and a failed experiment. Often, equity groups will hear quotes ranging from $100k+. Unfortunately, this often pales in comparison to the real cost of discovering the actual requirements, architecture, time, and revised costs required to finish and then maintain your portal. (Ever heard of the expression, 3x the time, 3x the money?) Unsurprisingly, these expensive portals often launch lacking any technological advantage or value add.