Make-or-buy in recruiting

In short: There is no single right answer — in-house recruiting suits ongoing standard demand, headhunters suit rare senior roles (often at 20–30% of annual salary per hire), and platforms combine pre-qualified quality with scalability at more predictable costs. Many companies combine all three; what matters is the price per successful hire, not the list price.

In-house (your own recruiting)

Strong for: ongoing demand, your own brand, cultural closeness. Weaker for: rare specialist roles, peaks, missing sourcing know-how. Costs: people/time (often underestimated).

Classic agency/headhunter

Strong for: hard-to-fill senior/specialist roles, discretion. Weaker for: scaling and price (often 20–30% of annual salary per hire). Costs: high per hire.

Platform (AI + human)

Strong for: combining quality and scalability — pre-qualified, well-matched talents on predictable terms. Weaker for: very exotic one-off roles outside the pool. Costs: between in-house and headhunter, more predictable.

The honest decision

It's not either-or. Many combine: in-house for standard roles, platform for quality-at-scale, headhunter for the rare exception. What matters is the price per successful hire, not the list price.

myrecruity sits deliberately in between: headhunter quality at platform terms. Book a free demo