You will get two very different narratives about hiring a team from India.
A founder says, “We shipped more quickly, saved money, and the team seemed like an extension of us.”
Someone else says, “Never again. Deadlines were missed, code was sloppy, and rework was constant.”
Both stories can be correct—because “Indian web/app companies” is not a monolith. It is a broad category that includes world-class product engineering partners, as well as low-cost vendors that survive on saying “yes” to everything and then fixing it later.
The appropriate question shouldn’t be “Is India good or bad?” The actual question is: What do Western founders think about Indian agencies, and what do the data + real delivery patterns actually say?
In the interest of keeping this practical, this post unpacks 10 common myths Western founders have and outlines the realities in plain English — as well as actions you can take to avoid the most common failure modes.
India is not just a small niche talent pool. GitHub’s Octoverse report states India had more than 5.2 million developers in 2025, translating to a little over 14% of GitHub’s 36+ million new developers that year. That’s not to say “India = quality,” but it does say the ecosystem is huge and your outcome is highly dependent on selection.
Communication is not a binary yes/no. EF’s English Proficiency Index reveals India scored 484 on the EF EPI, while the global average sits at 488 on the same page of that report — so, to put it simply, the English competency is usable but inconsistent, and you need to think of communication as a screening problem, not a stereotype.
About the process maturity, the CMMI Institute’s 2025 Performance Results Report states that the U.S., India, and China continued to be the top three adopting countries (based on appraisal data of 2024), and it summarizes the outcome improvements the organizations reported after using CMMI (refer to CMMI Summary of Results for cumulative data 2019–2024). This is important because much of the “offshore pain” is really “low-process maturity pain.”
Now, let’s get into the myths.
A more accurate reality is that India is often cheaper simply because the local cost base is lower, not because good engineering is impossible there. A useful point of comparison is U.S. pay: the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that the median annual wage for software developers was 133,080 U.S. dollars in May 2024. Western founders who compare that to offshore pricing sometimes conclude that “cheap must mean bad.” But cost and quality don’t have a one-to-one correlation; what counts is whether the vendor has robust delivery mechanisms (well-defined requirements, disciplined QA, code review, release safety, and documentation).
Meanwhile, you never have to disregard the alarm bells. If a vendor is very inexpensive, that usually means something was cut out of the process—seniority, QA, product thinking, documentation, or release discipline—and you will pay later in rework. The actual metric is not “hourly rate.” It’s the cost per stable feature delivered.
That’s why the founders who “saved 60%” were usually not just purchasing hours—they were buying a team with a working system. Founders who got burned generally purchased hours on a system-free basis.
In the real world, many reputable vendors don’t cost that. Clutch also has its own advice that says most web development companies charge $25 to $49 per hour, and it cites that many projects on the platform come under $10,000, while more complex builds can go a lot higher depending on the scope.
That doesn’t mean $25-$49/hr is quality. What it means is the “India = $10/hr” narrative is an outdated one, and it is a very simplistic one. What founders should really learn is this: pricing bands tell you almost nothing unless you understand what is accompanied by in the delivery system—how discovery works, how QA is conducted, and how releases are managed.
Time zones can certainly cause friction, but only if the two parties expect collaboration to happen as it did around the same office. When you count on random calls and “quick hallway clarifications,” offshore becomes unbearable. When you design for predictable overlap and async clarity, offshore is very workable.
The trick is to stop viewing overlap as a nice bonus and start considering it essential for day-to-day operations. Many excellent offshore teams operate successfully with a two- to four-hour overlap window daily, plus asynchronous rituals that advance the project without meetings. When founders go off the rails, it tends to be because feedback is slow and muddy. A team will ship something, get comments a day later, rework it, and repeat the cycle.
This is why good offshore teams insist on written updates and recorded demos: they are trying to shorten your feedback loop.
The myth persists because some founders literally lived through that. But the more fundamental reality is that the quality of communication varies by vendor—and even by individual within the same vendor. EF EPI’s numbers are insightful here, supporting a more realistic understanding: India’s national score (484) is just below the global average (488) on EF’s own country page, so you would expect to be able to make do in English overall, but you should still screen for clarity of thought and structure.
In reality, amazing communication is more about habits than it is about accent. Excellent teams always do three things: they paraphrase your request, they expose assumptions before synthesizing, and they identify risks as early as possible. Inferior squads just start saying ”yes,” and surface incomprehensions after you get the build.
If you want to de-risk communication, don’t ask, “Are you good at English?” Give them a single-page issue and check if they can write a clear summary, assumptions, and criteria for acceptance. That one test foretells offshore success better than any sales call.
Some vendors really are ticket factories, and founders who want a “product partner” come away disappointed. But product thinking exists in India just the way it exists anywhere: it’s a function of leadership, incentives, and experience.
From Day One, a product-oriented team acts differently. They ask what your user is trying to accomplish—not simply what feature you want built. They offer trade-offs (“Ship V1 in 4 weeks if we cut X; Ship V2 later”). They push for instrumentation so you can measure activation/conversion/retention/operational efficiency. And frankly, that kind of thinking isn’t even geographical; it is actually tied to those teams that have shipped real products and lived with the consequences.
If you want product thinking, your evaluation
The attrition risk is real in the tech world across the world. The reason it is offshore attrition that hurts more is that many founders do not have internal systems to absorb change. “If all knowledge resides in one developer’s brain, then one departure becomes a crisis. Attrition is manageable if the project is documented, code reviewed, has consistent PR practices, and has automated tests.”
Therefore, the “continuity” question should not be asked as “Do you have attrition?” The better question is: “If one developer left tomorrow, how long would it be before another engineer could safely deploy?” If you don’t know the answer, your delivery system is broken.
A good vendor will demonstrate continuity via artifacts: setup docs, coding standards, QA plan, a release checklist, and a predictable mode of writing tickets. Those artifacts are more important than promises.
Security is primarily a matter of process discipline and access control rather than a country. A legitimate partner can go through proper contracts (NDA + IP assignment), but what really protects you day by day is operational security: individual accounts, least privilege access, audit logs, MFA, controlled production access, and clean offboarding.
Most offshore breaches result from founders unintentionally making their workspaces insecure. They exchange production credentials over chat, all use the same admin account, and skip audit logs because it’s a “hassle.” Then, when something went wrong, there was no visibility.
If you treat your offshore team like a real team—with real accounts, roles, and controls—you’ll greatly reduce risk no matter where it’s located.
There are many WordPress agencies because the demand for WordPress is high. But a large developer ecosystem also leads to very strong, modern specialization. One of many signs that the ecosystem is wide and expanding is GitHub’s Octoverse reporting massive developer additions for India in 2025.
The real question is not whether modern stack contributors exist. It does. The question is whether you can find the right team and know that you have it early. The best approach is to demand evidence in the form of architectural thinking: how do they manage deployments, observability, rollbacks, performance, caching, queues, and automated tests? Teams that can answer those questions are generally pretty good at building modern systems. Teams that cannot will have a hard time, even if they say the right stack.
Deadlines are almost always missed because the scope was never really known or stabilized. Makes offshore worse when feedback cycles are that slow. A team ships something; you respond late; the team reworks; the schedule slips. People attribute it to geography; however, the project’s operating system is the true cause.
This is where process maturity comes into the picture. The CMMI’s performance report describes the improvements experienced by organizations after adopting CMMI (derived from corroborative data of several tens of thousands of companies). While it is not “India-only,” it does lend credence to the notion that working in a disciplined process does correlate with measurable delivery outcomes. When founders opt for a vendor with a poor process, schedules slip even with local teams. When founders opt for a vendor with a strong process, offshore can, in theory, run with a predictable cadence.
A straightforward weekly cadence minimizes surprises as it compels reality to reveal itself early on: a demo, feedback, and a plan. This is how deadlines become manageable.
Hidden costs exist, but they’re not random. They tend to result from rework, vague requirements, poor QA, and lengthy feedback loops. When founders say “Offshore is expensive,” what they often mean is, “We paid for the same feature three times.” This is not a geography issue; this is a governance issue.
Make the total cost tangible by thinking of the total cost (all costs) as an iceberg. The bill is in sight. The reworking and delays are not.
You can manage and even eliminate hidden costs by investing in clarity up front (discovery, acceptance criteria, edge cases) and release safety (tests, staging, CI/CD). Clutch’s advice is hinting already at this when it points out that cost is dependent on the complexity of the scope and the seniority of the team. Or to put it another way, the “cheap” project is sometimes expensive because it’s missing the work that prevents rework.
Most offshore pain is not due to one catastrophic collapse. It results from gradual erosion through a series of failures. A feature is developed with no definition of done. QA is done late. Releases are manual and risky. Feedback is received too late. After a while, the project turns into a swamp.
The following chart is a representation of the top 5 causes for offshore frustration. It’s not “global research data,” but it’s a sociable model of what veteran delivery teams encounter project after project.
The good news is that the solution is not complex. It’s more about having a functioning system: well-defined scope slices, rapid feedback loops, disciplined QA, and safe releases.
If you had a bad experience in India, it doesn’t make “India bad.” It almost always means you got stuck on the wrong end of the vendor spectrum. India has low-cost vendors that are geared towards volume, mid-market agencies with varying degrees of maturity, process-driven delivery shops, and premium product engineering partners. Your results vary more with the placement of your vendor along that spectrum than with the country itself.
This visual is an illustration (not actual market data), but it helps explain why founders’ stories differ so wildly: the market is broad.
If you would like the benefits of India without the disadvantages, you need two things: a good vendor and a good operating system. The surest path to both is to begin with a small paid pilot that engages real complexity, and scale only once the team demonstrates that it can ship cleanly with clear communication and predictable cadence.
This is what “proof” looks like in practice: you can run the project locally with straightforward setup steps, you have regular demos, the code goes through review, tests are early, and deployments to staging are scripted. When those things are true, offshore starts feeling normal. When those things are absent, offshore feels like anarchy.
Large-scale industry does not mean that every vendor is good, but it does mean there is a deep supply and professional demand. Reuters quoted the NASSCOM projection that software exports would grow to the tune of $224.4B in fiscal year 2025, underlining the size of this sector. That size brings with it two distinct extremes: extremely strong and extremely weak teams. The job of a founder is to filter.
