Exclaimer, provider of email signature management solutions, has released the results of the Build vs buy: The true cost of DIY IT solutions report, delivering a global view of how IT and security leaders are reassessing the true cost, risk and return of building software in-house versus buying from trusted vendors.
The findings, based on insights from over 2,000 IT and security decision-makers, reveal that 71% of in-house builds are eventually abandoned. This insight, termed ‘The DIY Mirage’, reveals the false sense of control and efficiency that fades as maintenance demands, compliance risks, and long-term costs grow.
The research also reveals regional differences: UK teams are more likely to build in-house to meet compliance and data residency requirements (33%), while US teams build primarily for integrations with legacy systems (28%). However, that speed often comes at a cost as US IT leaders report higher rates of downtime from internal tools (74% vs 50% in the UK).
“We commissioned this report to bring clarity to a question every IT leader faces: do you build, or do you buy?” said Paul Hammond, Chief Product & Technology Officer, at Exclaimer. “The data shows that while building in-house can feel like control, it often comes at the expense of time, security and scalability. At Exclaimer, we’ve seen how easily operational burden creeps in when IT teams are forced to maintain tools that were never meant to scale. This research helps organisations see the full picture, that true efficiency isn’t about owning every line of code, but freeing teams to focus on growth and innovation.”
In-house builds fail to meet expectations
The findings point to a widening gap between perceived efficiency and real outcomes regardless of region. Nearly half of IT teams still prefer to build their own tools, but only 8% of those projects are delivered on time and just 11% stay on budget. In reality, over half take 1.6 to 2 times longer than planned, and almost half of all in-house IT projects (46%) end up costing close to twice what the organisation originally budgeted for.
The hidden demands soon follow as 63% of teams say they spend 10-50 hours per month maintaining internal tools, and 66% require an additional $20,000 to $100,000 a year to keep them running. With 64% of organisations reporting security-related downtime and 31% citing compliance and data protection challenges as key barriers, what starts as a cost-saving initiative quickly turns into a long-term liability rather than a strategic advantage.
The data also reveals that delivery performance remains a global weak spot. Only 6% of US builds finish on time compared with around 11% in the UK, while 89% of US projects exceed budget versus 84% in the UK. Despite the regional differences, both markets underestimate the time and cost required to maintain homegrown software.
In heavily regulated industries like manufacturing and finance, 83% of internally built tools are eventually abandoned, which underscores how complexity and compliance pressures make homegrown systems difficult to sustain.
Seven in ten IT and security leaders (71%) admit they’ve built a tool in-house only to abandon it later. Among the most senior roles, that rises to 81% of CIOs and 73% of CTOs, showing that even the best-resourced teams struggle to sustain what they start. Security perceptions also diverge sharply: UK leaders are more likely to say vendors offer greater protection (51%), while US leaders express stronger confidence in their own builds (59%). The result is the same on both sides as downtime remains a universal challenge.
A global shift from building to buying
The report identifies a clear trend towards specialist vendors. When asked why they choose to buy rather than build, IT leaders pointed to speed (30%), access to expertise (29%), and reliability (28%) as key drivers.
While reasons for the shift towards buying differ by market, the direction teams are taking is clear. UK teams, driven by regulatory pressure (33%), are turning to specialist vendors for compliance and control. In contrast, US teams, historically more speed-oriented (23%), are now finding that vendor partnerships offer faster scalability and reduced maintenance. Both regions show a decisive shift: buying for efficiency now outweighs building for control.
Hammond added: “As organisations race to modernise and scale securely, we’re seeing that IT leaders recognise that buying from trusted partners delivers faster deployment, predictable performance, and built-in compliance without the constant drain of maintenance and patching. The research shows that these partnerships now represent trust, visibility, and control, backed by enterprise-grade governance and security. The question is therefore not whether IT teams can build; they must decide when they should.”
About the Build vs Buy Report
Exclaimer’s Build vs buy: The true cost of DIY IT solutions report surveyed over 2,000 IT and security decision-makers across key global markets, including the US, UK, Europe and APAC. The findings reveal how IT teams weigh control, cost and compliance when deciding whether to build solutions in-house or buy from trusted vendors.
