Building your own team buys you the most control. The people absorb the business domain over time, and that accumulated context sits with you. The catch shows up as time and rigidity: filling a senior role routinely takes several months, ramping up adds more time, and the cost continues through the quiet quarters.
Handing a project to a vendor is the arrangement where someone else is accountable for shipping: the partner staffs the team, the partner manages the process, and they carry the staffing risk. This works well when the scope is reasonably clear and there is a decision maker with time for it. It works badly when the requirements change weekly, as a vendor is not able to fill that gap for you.
Hiring individual contractors is the middle option: .net core cross-platform development workload you bring in developers and keep the planning and the management in-house. It moves quickly — a matching profile can join in weeks rather than months — and it winds down as quickly as it ramped up. The condition remains that your engineering managers have to have the bandwidth to manage them. Without strong internal leadership, you end up paying for effort with no owner.
In the real world, global software development company these models are combined. One durable pattern puts architecture, product decisions and core domain code with permanent staff, while a partner covers the parts that are bounded and specifiable. The principle is simple enough: keep the parts that are hard to re-learn, and contract out anything a competent team can specify and deliver.
A few questions resolve most of these debates. First: is this mvp software development central to how you make money, or internal plumbing? Then: for how long does the work continue — a quarter monolith or microservices a decade? Last: who will maintain it in two years? Answer these three honestly and the right arrangement usually chooses itself.