Edip Kilinc is the founder of Webwavers. Together with his team, he develops websites, brands, and digital presences for ambitious companies – with over 250 completed projects, and honored with awards including the German Design Award 2026.
Website builder. 15 to 50 euros a month for the tool. Plus your own working hours: realistic 40 to 80 hours for a decent company website, spread over weeks. If you calculate your own hour at 60 euros, you end up at 2,400 to 4,800 euros – just not as an invoice.
Freelancer. 50 to 120 euros an hour, usually 3,000 to 12,000 euros for a company website. The range is explained less by quality than by scope: concept and copy included or not.
Agency. 8,000 to 40,000 euros, depending on the scope. Typically, this includes strategy, concept, design, implementation, testing, and training – i.e. roles that are handled by a single person in the case of a freelancer, and by yourself in the case of a website builder.
The figures are not comparable because they take away different amounts of work. That is the real difference.
Website builder. 15 to 50 euros a month for the tool. Plus your own working hours: realistic 40 to 80 hours for a decent company website, spread over weeks. If you calculate your own hour at 60 euros, you end up at 2,400 to 4,800 euros – just not as an invoice.
Freelancer. 50 to 120 euros an hour, usually 3,000 to 12,000 euros for a company website. The range is explained less by quality than by scope: concept and copy included or not.
Agency. 8,000 to 40,000 euros, depending on the scope. Typically, this includes strategy, concept, design, implementation, testing, and training – i.e. roles that are handled by a single person in the case of a freelancer, and by yourself in the case of a website builder.
The figures are not comparable because they take away different amounts of work. That is the real difference.
A website builder is not a compromise. It is the right choice under certain conditions.
It fits if you need only a few pages, if someone in-house has the time and interest, if the website is primarily meant to be a professional presence, and if inquiries come mainly through recommendations.
It does not fit if the website is supposed to generate inquiries, if you need to become visible in a competitive market, if multiple people maintain content, or if individuality is part of your positioning.
The typical mistake is not choosing a website builder, but underestimating that the tool only solves the technical half. Structure, texts, images, and the question of what goes on which page remain work – and that is exactly where most website builder projects fail, not because of the tool.
If you don't have time for texts, you haven't saved budget with a website builder, you've just postponed a project.
Freelancers are underrated. For clearly defined tasks, they often deliver faster and more personally than an agency because there is no coordination overhead in between.
It works when the task is clear, when you know what you want yourself, when you can deliver content, and when one person makes the decisions on your end.
Two risks are involved.
The first is dependency. Anyone who falls ill, goes on vacation, or takes a full-time job is unreachable – and there is no colleague to take over. This particularly affects ongoing operations.
The second is bandwidth. A person who designs, develops, writes copy, and consults is good in one of these areas and adequate in the others. You should know which one that is beforehand.
Both risks can be mitigated: access and files belong to you, documentation is part of the handoff, and there is a backup contact for support.
An agency is more expensive because multiple roles are involved. This is worth it under three conditions.
If you don't know what you need. The value then lies less in the implementation and more in the phase before – positioning, structure, argumentation. Anyone who has clarified this themselves is paying for it anyway.
If the website is a sales channel. As soon as inquiries depend on it, the difference quickly pays off. Two additional projects a year will cover an agency project.
If reliability counts. Dedicated contact person, representation, availability, liability. For companies with purchasing processes, this is not a luxury, but a requirement.
It is not worth it if you only need pure implementation and all conceptual aspects are already in place. In that case, you are paying for services that you will not utilize.
The fourth path is rarely offered because it sells poorly: concept external, implementation internal.
An agency or consultant develops the structure, page layout, argumentation, and design direction. You handle the implementation in a website builder or with a freelancer.
This costs a fraction of a full project and solves exactly the part that is hardest internally. Technically, most companies can manage to set up a website. What they fail at is the question of what goes where and why.
This does not work for complex requirements or if no one internally has the time. For a company with ten to fifty employees and a manageable offering, it is often the most economical option.
Ask for it. Very few offer it on their own initiative.
All three paths have one position that is not in the offer: what happens if it doesn't work.
A website that needs to be replaced after a year does not only cost the second implementation. It costs a year of lost inquiries, the internal time for both projects, and the visibility that has to be gathered up again during the second move.
That's why the crucial question is not what the cheapest way is, but which one is most likely to hold up the first time around.
Three clues:
How clear is your vision? The less clear, the more it speaks for external concept work.
How much time do you really have? Not in theory, but alongside daily business.
What depends on the website? Representation or revenue.
With representation and a clear vision, a website builder is enough. With revenue and an unclear vision, anything else is an expensive shortcut.
