Rates, Pricing & Contracts · 3 min read

Contract vs Full-Time Engineers: The Real Cost

How to compare an hourly contract rate against a salary honestly, including the costs that both sides of the comparison usually forget to count.

A contract rate is not a salary divided by two thousand hours. Contract rates absorb unpaid gaps, equipment, no paid leave and business overhead, so an hourly rate typically corresponds to fifty to sixty-five percent of itself when annualised as employment cost.

Why the naive comparison is wrong in both directions

The most common mistake is multiplying an hourly rate by two thousand and comparing the result to a salary. A contractor at one hundred dollars an hour looks like a two hundred thousand dollar employee, which makes contracting appear extravagant. This calculation is wrong, and it is wrong in a way that leads to bad decisions in both directions.

It undercounts the employee side by ignoring everything an employer pays beyond salary: payroll taxes, benefits, equipment, software licences, office or stipend costs, recruitment amortisation, and the management overhead that scales with headcount. Depending on jurisdiction, the fully loaded cost of an employee is commonly twenty-five to forty percent above their salary.

It also overcounts the contractor side by assuming full utilisation. Contractors are not paid for gaps between engagements, holidays, illness, or the administrative time of running a business, and they carry their own equipment and tooling. Their rate has to absorb all of that, which is why a rate that looks high annualises to considerably less than it appears.

A fairer comparison

Illustrative full-cost comparison between a contractor and an employee at comparable capability.
Cost component	Contractor at $100/hr	Employee at $140k salary
Base cost	$100 per hour worked	$140,000 salary
Payroll taxes and benefits	None	Typically $25,000-45,000 on top
Equipment and software	Contractor absorbs it	$3,000-6,000 per year
Paid leave	Not paid	Roughly 25-30 days paid
Recruitment cost	Low, often re-engageable	Amortised agency or internal cost
Ramp-down cost	Notice period only	Severance, notice, legal exposure
Utilisation risk	You pay only for hours used	You pay through quiet periods

Situations where contracting is genuinely cheaper

Work with a defined end, where you would otherwise carry the headcount afterwards
Specialisms you need for months rather than years, such as a migration or a compliance deadline
Uncertain problems, where you may discover the role you thought you needed is the wrong one
Peak load, where the alternative is hiring for a peak you cannot sustain
Markets where employment law makes ending a mismatched hire slow and expensive
Situations where speed matters, since contract engagements typically start weeks sooner

Situations where full-time is clearly better value

Anything core to your product, held for years, where accumulated context is the dominant cost. Agent systems are a good example: they accumulate a large amount of undocumented knowledge about failure modes, customer behaviour and why particular decisions were made. Transferring that repeatedly between contractors is a recurring cost that eventually exceeds any rate difference.

Roles that require deep organisational relationships also favour employment. An engineer whose effectiveness depends on knowing who to ask across five teams becomes more valuable over time in a way that a rate comparison does not capture, and that value resets to zero when they leave.

And roles where you need someone to care about the second-order consequences. Contractors are professionals and most take real pride in their work, but a contract has an end date, and incentives around technical debt genuinely differ when the person will not be maintaining what they build.

The hybrid approach most teams converge on

In practice, the sequencing that works is contract first, convert later. Start with a contractor while the problem is still ambiguous, because the commitment is reversible and a good contractor brings pattern recognition from several other systems. Once the work is clearly ongoing and core, convert or hire.

This is also fairer to the engineer than it sounds. A contract engagement lets both sides evaluate the fit on real work rather than on interviews, and conversion offers made after three months of collaboration are accepted far more often than offers made after three interviews.

Agree the conversion terms up front rather than discovering them later. A conversion fee negotiated at the start is a routine commercial detail; the same fee discovered after both sides have decided they want to proceed is a source of genuine friction that occasionally kills an otherwise good outcome. The same applies to notice periods, which are worth writing down at the outset for exactly the same reason.

Part of the Rates, Pricing & Contracts cluster · Read the pillar page

Frequently asked questions

Is contracting more expensive than hiring?

On headline rate, usually. On fully loaded cost for work with a defined end, frequently not. The comparison only becomes meaningful once you add payroll taxes, benefits, equipment and utilisation risk to the employment side.

How do I convert an hourly rate to a salary equivalent?

A common heuristic is that a contract rate annualises to roughly fifty to sixty-five percent of a naive hourly-times-two-thousand figure, because the rate absorbs unpaid gaps, leave, equipment and business overhead that an employer would otherwise carry.

Should I start with a contractor or hire directly?

Start with a contractor when the problem is still ambiguous or the duration is uncertain. Hire directly when the work is clearly core and ongoing, because accumulated context is expensive to transfer repeatedly between people.

What is a typical contract-to-hire conversion fee?

It varies widely and should be agreed at the start rather than discovered later. Agreeing it up front turns a routine commercial detail into a non-event; leaving it undefined creates friction exactly when both sides want to proceed.

Do contractors care less about code quality?

Most are professionals who take real pride in their work. That said, incentives around technical debt do differ when someone will not be maintaining what they build, which is an argument for code review standards rather than against contracting.