In-House vs Outsourced Accounting: What the Cost Comparison Looks Like
In-House vs Outsourced Accounting: What the Cost Comparison Looks Like
Overview
The salary line is the easiest number to compare, and the least complete one. Here's what really goes into the cost of an in-house hire versus an outsourced finance team, side by side.
"Outsourcing is more expensive than just hiring someone" is one of the most common objections finance leaders raise, and it's usually based on comparing one number (a salary) against another number (a monthly fee) without looking at what sits underneath either one.
What an in-house hire actually costs
A salary is the starting point, not the total. Add employer taxes and social contributions, which vary by country but are rarely small. Add benefits, whether that's pension contributions, health insurance, or statutory leave entitlements. Add the cost of the software licenses and systems access that person needs to do the job. Add recruitment cost, which includes agency fees or the internal time spent screening and interviewing. Add onboarding time, during which a new hire is drawing a full salary while still ramping up toward full productivity.
Then add the cost that's hardest to plan for: what happens when that person leaves. Recruitment starts again, the gap reopens, and the whole cycle repeats, usually at a higher salary than the last time.
What an outsourced team actually includes
A well-structured outsourcing fee typically bundles the specialist's time, backup coverage if they're out sick or on leave, access to broader expertise (tax, payroll, reporting) without hiring separately for each function, and the systems the provider already runs. There's no recruitment cost when a specific person changes roles, because the team, not the individual, is the point of continuity.
The fee scales with the actual scope of work rather than staying fixed regardless of workload, which matters most for companies whose finance needs fluctuate across the year, around fundraising, audits, or seasonal peaks.
Where the comparison favours outsourcing
For a single, steady, full-time role in a market where hiring is fast and turnover is low, an in-house hire can be the more economical choice. For most growing companies, though, finance workload isn't flat, and the true cost of an in-house hire (loaded cost, ramp time, coverage gaps, and turnover risk combined) tends to land higher than the equivalent outsourced setup once every factor above is counted, not just the base salary.
Run the comparison on your own numbers
The honest answer depends on your specific situation, your country's employment costs, and how steady your finance workload actually is. A generic comparison chart won't tell you what applies to your business. A conversation with someone who's built both models will.
Baltic Assist can walk through a side-by-side cost comparison built around your actual numbers, not a hypothetical average. Book a consultation and bring your current finance costs. We'll show you exactly where they stand against an outsourced alternative.
Have a question?
Get in touch!
Baltic Assist provides a comprehensive outsourcing solutions that saves costs, enhances efficiency, and strategic decision-making for your business.
