The Comparison Framework That Helps Agency Owners Make the Right SEO Call

Agency owners often compare an outsourced SEO retainer against a single in-house salary and conclude that hiring internally is cheaper. That comparison is incomplete.

When you hire an in-house SEO, the total cost includes salary, payroll taxes, benefits, recruitment fees, onboarding time, and the toolstack — Ahrefs, SEMrush, Screaming Frog, rank trackers, content platforms. That toolstack alone can run $800–$1,500/month depending on what you already own. Add management overhead and the months of ramp time before a new hire reaches full productivity, and the true cost of an entry-level in-house SEO frequently exceeds what most agencies estimate in their initial budget model.

Outsourced SEO carries a different cost structure. You pay a retainer — typically covering strategy, execution, and reporting — without absorbing the fixed costs of employment. The tradeoff is that the external partner is splitting attention across multiple clients, and their institutional knowledge of your specific agency brand and voice takes time to build.

What to actually compare:

• Total loaded cost of in-house hire (salary + tools + benefits + management time) vs. retainer fee
• Time-to-productivity: a new hire takes 60–90 days minimum to become effective; a specialist partner can begin execution in week one
• Flexibility: outsourced scales up or down as your client roster shifts; in-house headcount is sticky
• Risk: if your in-house hire leaves, you lose institutional knowledge and face a rehire cycle; if an outsourced partner underperforms, you can transition with less disruption

Industry benchmarks suggest that outsourcing becomes cost-competitive — or outright cheaper — until an agency reaches a point where SEO is a core, high-volume service line rather than one offering among many. That threshold varies by agency size and service mix.

Rather than arguing one model is universally better, here are three common agency profiles and the approach that typically makes sense for each.

Scenario A: Generalist Agency Under $1M Revenue

You offer SEO as part of a broader service bundle — alongside paid media, social, and web. SEO is not your primary revenue driver, and you have one or two people who wear multiple hats. At this stage, building a dedicated in-house SEO function usually creates more overhead than the revenue justifies. An outsourced specialist — or a white-label SEO partner — lets you offer the service credibly without the fixed cost.

Scenario B: SEO-Focused Agency at $1M–$3M Revenue

SEO is central to your value proposition, and you're managing multiple active clients simultaneously. You've likely already hired one generalist SEO. This is the stage where a hybrid model makes the most sense: one internal strategist who owns client relationships and strategy, supported by an outsourced delivery partner who handles execution at scale. This avoids the cost and risk of building a full in-house team before revenue supports it.

Scenario C: Established Agency with Dedicated SEO Practice

SEO is a defined practice area generating consistent, predictable revenue. You have the client volume to justify full-time specialists, team leads, and internal QA processes. At this scale, in-house is often the right long-term answer — but even here, many agencies retain external partners for specific capabilities like digital PR, technical audits, or content production that are cheaper to outsource than to staff.

The key question is not which model is better in theory — it's which model fits your current revenue, client volume, and growth trajectory.

Use this as a quick reference when pressure-testing your decision. Neither column is inherently better — the right answer depends on the scenarios above.

• Speed to execution: In-house requires hiring and ramp time (60–90 days minimum). Outsourced partners can begin delivering in week one.
• Specialist depth: A single in-house hire covers a broad but shallow range of skills. An outsourced specialist team brings depth in technical SEO, content strategy, and link acquisition simultaneously.
• Brand and voice alignment: In-house staff absorb your culture over time. Outsourced partners need structured onboarding and clear briefs to maintain consistency.
• Cost structure: In-house is a fixed cost regardless of client volume. Outsourced is typically variable — easier to scale up or pause.
• Institutional knowledge: In-house builds over months and years. Outsourced knowledge lives partly outside your organization; transitions require documentation discipline.
• Accountability: In-house staff are directly managed. Outsourced partners require clearly defined deliverables, KPIs, and review cadences to stay accountable.
• Toolstack: In-house requires you to own or license all tools. Many outsourced partners include tooling in their retainer.
• Flexibility: In-house headcount is hard to reduce quickly. Outsourced contracts typically have shorter commitment periods.

The pattern in our experience: agencies that choose outsourced SEO and struggle usually chose on price. Agencies that choose in-house and struggle usually underestimated total cost or hired a generalist when they needed a specialist.

Walk through these questions in order. Your answers will point toward the right model for where your agency is right now.

1. Is SEO your agency's primary revenue driver? If no — outsource first. If yes — continue to question 2.
2. Do you have more than five active SEO clients generating consistent monthly revenue? If no — outsource or use a hybrid. If yes — continue to question 3.
3. Can you afford a fully loaded in-house SEO hire (salary + tools + benefits) without it materially straining your margins? If no — hybrid model. If yes — continue to question 4.
4. Do you have the internal management capacity to recruit, onboard, and develop an SEO team member without pulling founders or senior staff away from client delivery? If no — outsource or hybrid. If yes — in-house is viable.

Most agency owners who work through these questions honestly land on one of two answers: outsourced (if they're earlier stage or capital-constrained) or hybrid (if they have one internal strategist but need execution bandwidth).

A pure in-house model only makes consistent sense when SEO is your core service, your client volume is high enough to fully use dedicated staff, and your margins support the fixed cost without depending on those staff being billable at full capacity.

If you completed this exercise and still aren't sure which direction fits your agency, the next step is mapping the actual numbers — what an outsourced engagement would cost versus what a fully loaded hire would cost at your current and projected revenue. That comparison is where most decisions become clear.

These are the arguments agency owners make for each side, and where those arguments hold up or fall apart.

"We need someone who understands our brand deeply."

This is a valid concern — and it's solved by onboarding, not by hiring. An outsourced partner who receives thorough documentation of your positioning, voice, and client profiles will outperform a junior in-house hire who's still learning SEO fundamentals. Brand alignment is a process problem, not a proximity problem.

"Outsourcing is just paying someone else's margins."

You're also paying your in-house hire's learning curve, sick days, and eventual departure. Total cost of ownership for in-house is consistently underestimated by agencies doing this comparison for the first time. The question is not whose margins you're paying — it's which model delivers the output you need at a cost structure your revenue supports.

"An in-house team will care more about results."

Incentives drive behavior more than employment status does. An outsourced partner with clear KPIs, a structured review cadence, and a contract tied to retention will care about results. An in-house hire with vague goals and no performance framework will not. The management system matters more than whether someone is on payroll.

"We want to build internal capability long-term."

This is the right instinct — and outsourcing doesn't prevent it. Many agencies use an external partner to build methodology, templating, and process documentation while internal staff learn alongside. The capability transfer happens faster when there's a working model to observe and replicate than when a junior hire is building from scratch.