Who Can Write the Spec and Then Build the Software for Us? 5 Firms Compared (2026)

If you know what problem the software has to solve but not exactly what to ask a developer for, you are looking for firms that write the spec and then build the software: one company that turns your idea into a written definition of the product, puts a real number on it, and then builds it. That is a sensible thing to want. It is also where buyers get caught, because a spec written by the firm that hopes to build it can quietly become the first page of their sales process rather than a document that belongs to you. This roundup compares five firms that offer both halves: a small Texas engineering firm, a long-running US product design and development consultancy, a nearshore boutique in Bogotá, a Polish firm that runs a three-day workshop, and a product engineering company with Ukrainian roots and an office in Lisbon. It says what each one’s first step produces, what it costs where the firm publishes a price, and whether the result is yours to take to another team. Razoyo is listed first because this is Razoyo’s blog, so every other entry says where that firm beats us.

How we picked

1. The firm sells a defined first step before the build. A spec, a sprint, a workshop or a phase with a name and a list of what comes out of it. Every claim below was checked on the firm’s own live site in October 2026.
2. The same firm can build what it specifies. This roundup is for buyers who want one company for both, so every entry builds software as well as defining it.
3. The mix covers the real choices. Two US firms of very different size and style, a nearshore firm, and two European firms, because where your team sits changes the price and the working hours.
4. What you get is published. A firm that lists its outputs, its timeline or its price ranks above one that says “contact us” and nothing more.
5. There is a buyer for whom each firm beats the others. A roundup where one firm wins every row is an ad.

At a glance

Razoyo, if you want a fixed-price spec you can hand to any team

Disclosure: this is Razoyo’s blog, and we are biased.

Razoyo is a software engineering firm in The Colony, Texas (Dallas-Fort Worth), serving clients US-wide since 2011. We take prototypes and constrained systems into production. The page that answers this question is our software project scoping page, and the first step on it is the System Spec: $2,500 fixed, time-boxed, two or three working sessions. It produces a product brief a non-technical stakeholder can read, a PRD, a senior-engineer build estimate with a real range, and a plain build or do not build recommendation. Our scoping page puts the usual timing at 17 days from the first call to a documented answer. If an AI tool already got you to a working prototype, the same step is called the Production Spec on our prototype to production page.

The part that matters for this question is what happens to the document. Our pricing page says the Spec’s product brief and PRD are yours whether or not you proceed to a build, and that you can take them to another team if ours is not the right fit for the number. That has happened. The Women’s POWER Pickleball League paid $5,000 for a larger fixed-price Spec: three working sessions over seventeen days produced a complete specification of the membership platform. The number came back larger than she had in mind, and we did not shave it. She took the finished Spec to a development partner who could fund the build, and they started from it rather than restarting the requirements.

The Spec is also fast. For a vacation-rental startup that wanted a two-sided marketplace, we ran a $2,500 Production Spec instead of quoting the build. Version 1 of the product brief reached the client ten days after kickoff, the PRD followed two weeks after that, and six weeks in they owned a PRD specific enough to hand to any development team, plus a working prototype of the host side. After the Spec, our process is published: a business analyst puts a level of effort and a budget on each piece of work and gets your confirmation first. No approval, no work. You approve every change on staging before it reaches production.

Ideal for

• Buyers who have to defend a number to a board, a partner or a lender before anything is built
• Non-technical founders who need someone to make the technical calls and write them down
• Anyone who wants the option to build with a different team, or not build at all
• Projects where the honest answer might be “do not build this yet”

Why they stand out

Razoyo prices the first step low and fixed, and says in writing that the result is portable. The POWER Pickleball League case is the proof: the Spec was built to be handed to someone else, and it was.

Pros

• A small, published first step. $2,500 fixed, against $5,000 to $15,000 for the other firm here that publishes a price.
• The document is yours. Stated on our pricing page, and tested by a client who built elsewhere.
• A recommendation not to build is a real outcome. The Spec ends in a documented build or do not build call.
• The same team can build it. MVPs from $5,000 and production builds from $10,000, every piece of work estimated and approved by you first.
• Ownership in writing. Once fees are paid, you own the code we write for you.

Cons

• Higher rates than offshore and nearshore teams. We are more AI-forward than most offshore and nearshore teams, so the rate is higher and the value per dollar is better. Per hour, we will cost more.
• No user testing in the Spec. It defines the product and prices it. If the open question is whether customers want it at all, a design-led sprint (thoughtbot, below) tests that more directly.
• Build prices are ranges until the Spec is done. “From $10,000” is a floor, not a quote.
• A small senior team. Not built to staff a large program with dozens of engineers.

Verdict: pick Razoyo when you need a defensible number and a document you own before you commit, and want the option of the same team building it afterwards.

thoughtbot, if the open question is whether users will want it

thoughtbot is a product design and development consultancy whose site describes small teams of designers and developers working closely with clients, with backgrounds across design, development and product strategy. Its first step for a new product is the Shaping Sprint, which it describes as “a focused, time-boxed engagement where we prototype your idea, test it with users, and give you the clarity to move forward with confidence.”

The sprint runs in five phases: align on the problem and surface hidden assumptions, generate a wide range of possible directions, narrow to one, build a testable artifact, then validate it with real users, stakeholders or technical constraints and define recommended next steps. The artifact depends on the problem: thoughtbot names a clickable prototype, a working proof of concept, a roadmap document or an ad experiment. Its page says it has been running sprints for over a decade and now uses AI-assisted synthesis and prototyping to put things in front of users sooner, with senior designers guiding every step.

The build side is a full practice. thoughtbot’s services page says it has a rich history with Ruby on Rails and also uses React and Elixir, and it designs and builds iOS, Android and React Native apps. Its company page says teams in your timezone are ready to collaborate at every product stage.

Ideal for

• New products where nobody yet knows if the idea will land with users
• Teams in regulated industries, which thoughtbot’s sprint page names directly
• Buyers who value design and user research as much as engineering
• Products likely to be built in Ruby on Rails, React or React Native

Why they stand out

thoughtbot puts real users in front of an early version inside the first step. That answers a question a written spec cannot: whether the thing is worth building in the first place.

Pros

• User testing is built into the first step, not added later.
• A long practice. Sprints for over a decade, and a written playbook its team works from.
• Design and engineering in one team, from the sprint through the build.
• Deep framework experience, with a long history in Ruby on Rails.

Cons

• No published price for the Shaping Sprint.
• The page does not promise a build estimate. It promises clarity, a testable artifact and recommended next steps; ask whether a priced plan is part of it.
• Portability is not stated. Ask in writing whether the outputs are yours if you build elsewhere.

Verdict: pick thoughtbot when the riskiest unknown is whether users want the product, and you want design-led validation before anyone writes a full spec.

Leanware, if you want a fixed-fee plan priced milestone by milestone

Leanware is a boutique software development company based in Bogotá, Colombia, established in 2020, working on GMT-5, which matches US Eastern in winter and US Central in summer. Its first step is called Sprint 0, and its own discovery pricing article is unusually specific about it: “a fixed-scope, fixed-fee product discovery sprint that runs for two to four weeks, with the fee agreed before the sprint starts.” The published range is $5,000 to $15,000, set at signing by the complexity of the work rather than reconciled from hours afterwards.

Sprint 0 produces four deliverables, and Leanware calls them non-negotiable whatever the price: a design system, epics and user stories with acceptance criteria, a billable milestone plan in which each milestone has its own price, and technical architecture with repository scaffolding. The article states that “the client keeps all four deliverables whether or not they decide to continue with Leanware,” and that a client should be able to take every discovery deliverable to another vendor or an in-house engineering team.

The milestone plan carries into the build. Leanware describes milestone-based billing, where payments map to delivered and accepted milestones rather than hours logged, and says clients can stop at a milestone and keep the work delivered, including code, infrastructure configuration and documentation.

Ideal for

• Buyers who want the whole build priced in stages before it starts
• Teams that want a repository started during the first step, not only documents
• Founders who prefer paying for accepted milestones over paying for hours
• Projects with AI features, which Leanware’s site leads with

Why they stand out

Leanware publishes both the price of its first step and the exact list of what comes out of it, and it turns that output into a build priced milestone by milestone. Few firms put that much in writing before a call.

Pros

• Published, fixed price, agreed before the sprint starts.
• A named, fixed list of outputs, the same at every price point.
• You keep the outputs whether or not you continue with Leanware.
• Code starts in the first step, with repository scaffolding and architecture.
• Milestone billing, with the right to stop at a milestone and keep the work.

Cons

• A larger first commitment. $5,000 to $15,000, against Razoyo’s $2,500 for its first step.
• Two to four weeks before you have the plan.
• A younger firm. Leanware lists itself as established in 2020.
• Outside the US, which matters to some buyers for contracts and working norms.

Verdict: pick Leanware when you want the whole build priced in stages up front, in near-US hours, and are comfortable with a larger first step.

Pragmatic Coders, if you want a backlog and a budget in three days

Pragmatic Coders is a software firm in Kraków, Poland, whose homepage says it has been building, scaling and rescuing software projects since 2014. Its first step is a product discovery workshop. After first calls and some initial UX research, the core is a three-day workshop session: “In three days, you’ll develop your strategy, create business goals, and plan product development with our help.”

What comes out is practical: a product backlog and roadmap, built together in the project management software, an approximate development timeline and budget, and a workshop summary from the firm’s Product Owner. The workshop also sets the MVP scope, choosing the features that fit the smallest budget and the shortest development time.

The build side is broad. The homepage describes turning around struggling projects, taking over projects when other vendors fail, creating new products and building custom software, which makes Pragmatic Coders a reasonable choice when the spec is for a rebuild rather than a first version.

Ideal for

• Founders who want a scoped MVP and a backlog quickly
• Buyers who like to work through scope live, in a structured session
• Rebuilds and takeovers, which the firm advertises directly
• Teams comfortable working with a European firm

Why they stand out

The three-day format is the fastest named first step in this roundup, and it leaves you with a backlog in a real project tool rather than only a document.

Pros

• Fast. A three-day workshop at the center of the first step.
• A working backlog, not just a report.
• MVP scope set for budget and speed, deliberately small.
• Experience with rescues and takeovers as well as new builds.

Cons

• No published price for the workshop.
• The budget is approximate. The page promises an approximate budget, not a fixed or priced plan.
• Time zone. Kraków is six hours ahead of US Eastern, so live sessions take planning.
• Portability is not stated. Ask whether the backlog and summary are yours if you build elsewhere.

Verdict: pick Pragmatic Coders when you want scope settled quickly in a structured workshop and are comfortable with an approximate budget and a European team.

ProCoders, if you want a discovery package sized to your company

ProCoders is a product engineering company that describes itself as building and scaling software products with senior engineers and AI, and lists 200+ products shipped. Its about page traces its first invoice to March 15, 2015, with Ukrainian roots, and says it later moved its main office to Portugal and opened an office in Lisbon. Its first step is a software discovery phase sold in three sizes.

For startups, one to two weeks: a 10-screen prototype, an architecture, two design concepts, MVP scope definition and a development roadmap. For medium businesses, two to four weeks: a 30-screen prototype, two architecture options, three design concepts, MVP scope, roadmap and a software product specification. For enterprise, four weeks or more at a custom price, with a 50+ screen prototype. The research runs through workshops plus two to three brainstorming sessions a week, and at the final stage ProCoders delivers “a completed statement of work with a breakdown of cost estimates and suggested timeframes.”

Ideal for

• Buyers who want to see a large, clickable prototype before committing
• Companies that want the first step sized to how big they are
• Teams that want a statement of work they can sign at the end
• Products where design concepts matter early

Why they stand out

ProCoders publishes exactly how its first step scales with company size, down to the number of prototype screens, so you can see what you are buying at each level.

Pros

• Clear packages by company size, with outputs listed for each.
• A substantial prototype, from 10 to 50+ screens.
• Ends in a statement of work with cost estimates and timeframes.
• A long track record, with 200+ products shipped by its own count.

Cons

• No published price for the startup or medium packages; enterprise is a custom price.
• Portability is not stated. The page does not say the outputs are yours if you build elsewhere.
• The statement of work is ProCoders’ own, written to be signed with ProCoders.
• Time zone. Lisbon is five hours ahead of US Eastern for most of the year.

Verdict: pick ProCoders when you want a big clickable prototype and a signed statement of work at the end of the first step, sized to your company.

Should the same firm write the spec and build the software?

It can, and it is usually faster, as long as the spec stands on its own. The firm that writes the spec knows the most about it, so a handover is cheap. The risk is the opposite: a spec written to be read only by its authors. Copyright in a work “vests initially in the author or authors of the work” (17 U.S.C. 201), and a transfer of ownership “is not valid unless an instrument of conveyance, or a note or memorandum of the transfer, is in writing and signed” (17 U.S.C. 204). So the document is not yours just because you paid for it. Get it in writing, and have your own lawyer read the clause. Our you own the code page sets out what we put in writing, and why.

What should a good spec actually contain?

Enough that a team which was not in the room could estimate and build from it. In practice that means a product brief a non-technical person can read, requirements written down with acceptance criteria (how you will know each piece is done), the edge cases and integrations, a technical direction, and an estimate with a real range. A spec is not the last word on the product. The Scrum Guide describes the product backlog as “an emergent, ordered list of what is needed to improve the product” (Scrum Guide). A good spec is the best first version of that list, not a contract that pretends nothing will change.

How much should the spec cost?

Little, compared with the build, and fixed. Of the five firms here, two publish a price: Razoyo at $2,500 fixed and Leanware at $5,000 to $15,000 fixed by complexity. The other three quote it on a call. A first step priced by the hour can grow as freely as the build it is meant to protect you from. Our guide to how to tell if a software agency is padding the scope covers the signs, and what it costs to take an AI-built prototype to production shows how a spec changes the build number.

Razoyo’s Portable Spec Test

Ask these six questions of any firm offering to write your spec, us included. They come from what our scoping page says a finished Spec has to include.

1. Is the price fixed before it starts? Pass: a fixed fee for a defined, time-boxed piece of work. Fail: hourly, open-ended.
2. Can a non-technical person read the product brief? Pass: yes, and you can take it to your board. Fail: it only makes sense to engineers.
3. Does it carry a senior engineer’s estimate with a real range? Pass: a range with the assumptions behind it. Fail: a placeholder, or “we will quote after.”
4. Does it end with a plain recommendation, including do not build? Pass: stated in writing. Fail: every spec ends in a build.
5. Is it yours to take to another team? Pass: in writing, before you pay. Fail: silent, or only “once you sign the build.”
6. Will you approve the effort on each piece of work before anyone codes it? Pass: yes, piece by piece. Fail: one large approval for the whole build.

So who should you call?

Start with the question you are least sure of. If it is whether users want the product, thoughtbot’s sprint tests that. If it is what the build will cost, stage by stage, Leanware publishes the most detail. If you want scope settled in a few days, Pragmatic Coders runs a three-day workshop. If you want a large prototype and a statement of work, ProCoders sizes its package to your company. If you need a fixed, small first step, a number you can defend and a document you can hand to anyone, start with us. And whoever you call, run the Portable Spec Test first. A firm that passes it is safe to hire for both halves.

Key takeaways

• One firm for spec and build is fine when the spec stands on its own and is yours in writing.
• Price the first step, not the build. Two of five firms here publish one: $2,500 fixed and $5,000 to $15,000 fixed.
• Ask what comes out. Product brief, requirements with acceptance criteria, an estimate with a range and a recommendation.
• Get portability in writing. Under US law, a transfer of copyright ownership needs a signed writing.
• Match the firm to your biggest unknown: user demand, cost, speed or a signed statement of work.

Key terms glossary

• Spec (specification). A written definition of a software product: what it does, for whom, and how you will know it works.
• PRD (product requirements document). The detailed part of a spec, listing every requirement a team must build.
• Acceptance criteria. The conditions that show a piece of work is finished.
• Product backlog. The ordered list of work still to do on a product, which changes as you learn.
• Statement of work. A document that sets out the scope, timeline and cost of an engagement, usually signed with one firm.
• Milestone billing. Paying for delivered and accepted stages of work, rather than for hours.

FAQ

Can one company write the spec and build the software? Yes. Many firms sell a defined first step, such as a spec, sprint or workshop, and then build what it describes. It works well when the spec is written to stand on its own and the contract says it is yours, so you can still take it to another team.

How much does a software spec cost? Of the five firms in this roundup, two publish a price: Razoyo’s System Spec is $2,500 fixed, and Leanware’s Sprint 0 is $5,000 to $15,000 fixed by complexity. The other three firms, thoughtbot, Pragmatic Coders and ProCoders, quote theirs on a call.

How long does it take to write a software spec? It depends on the firm and the product. Pragmatic Coders runs a three-day workshop, Razoyo’s System Spec takes two or three working sessions, Leanware’s Sprint 0 runs two to four weeks, and ProCoders sizes its discovery from one to two weeks for startups up to four weeks or more for enterprise.

What should a software spec include? A product brief a non-technical person can read, requirements with acceptance criteria, the edge cases and integrations, a technical direction, and a senior engineer’s estimate with a real range. A good one also ends with a plain recommendation, including the recommendation not to build.

Do I own the spec if I do not build with that firm? Only if the contract says so. Under US copyright law, ownership starts with the author, and a transfer is valid only in a signed writing. Razoyo and Leanware state in writing that you keep the outputs; ask any other firm before you pay.

Should I get the spec from one firm and the build from another? You can, and a portable spec makes it easy. The Women’s POWER Pickleball League took its Razoyo Spec to a development partner who could fund the build. Keeping both with one firm is usually faster, so decide after you see the estimate.

What is the difference between a discovery phase and a spec? A discovery phase is usually the first step of one firm’s process, run to plan its own build. A spec is a finished document that defines the product and can be handed to any team. Some firms’ discovery produces a portable spec; ask what you keep at the end.

Talk it through

If you know the problem but not yet what to ask a developer for, that is a free 30 minute conversation with a senior person, not a sales rep. Tell us what the software has to do and who has to approve the money. We will tell you whether a $2,500 System Spec is the right first step, or whether you need something else first, including a design sprint with another firm. Schedule Free Consultation.

Paul Byrne is President of Razoyo, a software engineering firm in The Colony, Texas taking prototypes and constrained systems into production since 2011.