What it costs, and what it's measured against.
Simple terms. No long-term contract. You own everything we build.
Both engagements include strategy rather than billing it separately, and both are scoped to one thing at a time rather than a transformation program. Below is what each costs, and the line-item comparison behind the claim that it runs well under the alternatives.
Engagements
Two ways to start
Most companies begin with one. One working system reliably reveals whether the second is worth doing.
AI Managed Pipeline
Strategy and ICP in. Pipeline out.
- AI sourcing agent running ICP and intent scoring daily
- Coordinated email and LinkedIn sequencing, ~400 prioritized contacts monthly
- Embedded BDR and RevOps team handling replies and qualification
- CRM setup, or native sync into HubSpot, Salesforce, Pipedrive, Zoho
- Real-time activity dashboard and a strategy review every two weeks
- You own all data, contacts and CRM infrastructure
- No long-term contract
AI Build Lab
Your fractional Chief Innovation Officer, and the team that builds it.
- Opportunity session to identify what's worth building first
- Solution design, what it does, who uses it, what it deliberately won't do
- Strategy, design, build and automation in one engagement
- Integration with the systems you already run
- Working versions in your hands early, not a reveal at the end
- You own the system, the data and the infrastructure outright
- Scoped to one opportunity, no six-figure transformation project
The math
What "60% lower" is measured against
A percentage without a comparison is an assertion. There are two real alternatives to managed pipeline, and the claim holds against both, for different reasons.
Pipeline: what the alternatives cost
| Line item | Typical monthly cost |
|---|---|
| Alternative one, build the capability in-house | |
| Data platform license (ZoomInfo, Apollo or similar) | $1,250–2,500 |
| CRM (Salesforce, HubSpot or similar) | $1,000–3,000 |
| Outbound sequencing and deliverability tooling | $300–600 |
| One SDR, loaded (salary, benefits, commission) | $7,500–9,000 |
| RevOps capacity to connect and maintain it | $2,000–3,500 |
| In-house total | $12,050–18,600 |
| Alternative two, an appointment setting retainer | |
| Retainer, meetings only, contact database stays with the agency | $6,000–10,000 |
| VGL Studio AI Managed Pipeline | $2,500–5,000 |
| Difference vs. in-house, at midpoints | 76% lower |
| Difference vs. retainer, at midpoints | 53% lower |
The in-house column excludes the three to six months before a new SDR produces a first qualified conversation, and the recruiting cost to fill the seat. Figures are typical market ranges for comparable scope, not quotes.
Where the comparison gets close, and why it still isn't equivalent
At the edges, a $6,000 appointment setter against a $5,000 engagement, the gap narrows to roughly 17%. Worth saying plainly rather than hiding behind an average. But the two are not the same purchase. An appointment setter delivers meetings and keeps the contact database. The engagement delivers ICP strategy, the orchestration layer, a CRM you own, and data that stays yours when it ends. The honest comparison is scope per dollar, not the headline number.
Build Lab against the alternatives
| Approach | To get one system | Cost over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Development agency, custom build | $75,000–150,000+ | Plus a maintenance relationship you don't control |
| Hiring a developer, loaded | $45,000–60,000 for the build window | $540,000–720,000, and a roadmap to keep them busy |
| Off-the-shelf platform or CRM that half fits (Salesforce, HubSpot and similar) | $1,000–5,000+ per month, starting immediately | $36,000–180,000, and the workarounds are still the process |
| VGL Studio AI Build Lab, 2–3 month sprint | $4,000–15,000 total | $4,000–15,000. It's yours. The spend stops. |
Agency and hiring figures are typical market ranges for comparable scope, not quotes. The three-year column is the point: every alternative except a build you own is a cost that recurs. A sprint is paid once and the system keeps running.
Terms
The same four commitments on both
No long-term contract
Engagements continue because something is working, not because a term sheet requires it.
You own everything
Data, contacts, CRM infrastructure and any system built. During the engagement and after it.
Strategy is included
ICP definition, positioning and scoping are part of the engagement, not a separate line item.
One thing at a time
Scoped to a single opportunity rather than a transformation program with a six-figure budget.
Not sure which one fits?
The AI Growth Readiness check takes about three minutes and tells you which of the two makes sense for where you are, including when the honest answer is neither, not yet.
Questions
Pricing, answered
How much does VGL Studio cost?
AI Managed Pipeline runs $2,500 to $5,000 per month depending on ICP complexity and team scope. AI Build Lab runs $2,000 to $5,000 per month across a two to three month focused build sprint. Neither requires a long-term contract, and both include strategy rather than charging for it separately.
Where an engagement lands in its range depends on scope rather than negotiation. A single-vertical ICP with one persona sits at the bottom. Multiple verticals, multiple personas, and a larger team to coordinate with sits at the top.
The VGL perspective
We publish the numbers because the alternative is a discovery call whose real purpose is finding out what you will pay.
What does 60% lower cost actually mean?
It is measured against the two real alternatives. Building equivalent pipeline capability in-house runs roughly $12,000 to $18,600 monthly across an SDR, a data platform, a CRM, outbound tooling and RevOps time. An appointment setting retainer runs $6,000 to $10,000. Against those, a $2,500 to $5,000 engagement lands 76% and 53% lower respectively at the midpoints of each range.
The in-house comparison also leaves out time. Three to six months pass before a new SDR produces a first qualified conversation, and that gap is a cost even though it never appears on an invoice.
At the narrow edge, the cheapest appointment setter against the top of our range, the gap is closer to 17%. The line-item tables above show both ends rather than only the flattering one.
The VGL perspective
We built this comparison because our own cost claim was unfalsifiable without it.
Is there a long-term contract?
No. Both engagements run on simple terms with no long-term commitment required. Build Lab is naturally bounded by the sprint, typically two to three months. Managed Pipeline continues month to month for as long as it produces, which is the arrangement that keeps the incentive pointed at outcomes.
Annual contracts protect the vendor from underperformance. Month to month means the engine has to keep earning the next month, which is the correct pressure to be under.
The VGL perspective
Engagements should continue because something proved out, not because a term sheet required it.
What happens to our data if we stop?
You keep everything. Contacts, sequence history, CRM infrastructure and any system built in a sprint are yours during the engagement and after it ends. Nothing is withheld at exit and nothing is rented back to you. This is the clearest difference from most agency arrangements.
Many agency arrangements retain the contact database and the sequence history, which means leaving costs you the asset you spent a year building. That is a switching cost disguised as a service term.
The VGL perspective
If a partner cannot answer this in one sentence, that is the answer. We made it one sentence deliberately.
Can we run both solutions at once?
Yes, though it is rarely the right first move. Most engagements start with one, prove it, then expand. When both run together the usual sequence is Managed Pipeline first to create conversations, with Build Lab building the buyer-facing applications that feed the top of that funnel.
Running both from day one doubles the surface area before either has proven out, which makes it harder to tell what worked. Sequencing them means the second engagement is informed by what the first uncovered.
The VGL perspective
Win first, then scale applies to buying us as much as to anything else. We would rather start smaller than sell more.
Next step
Find out which one fits before you talk to anyone
A short self-assessment for founders and revenue leaders. Three minutes, and you enter an email at the end to get the full report. You get a diagnostic you can act on whether or not you ever talk to us.
What you get back
- A score across how pipeline is sourced today, what the stack costs against what it produces, and where manual work still sits
- Your position on the VGL growth maturity model
- A recommendation, Managed Pipeline, Build Lab, both, or neither yet
- A concrete next step, whichever of those it turns out to be