Outsourced finance vs an in-house hire
The in-house comparison is almost always made against salary, which is the wrong number. Fully loaded cost — payroll taxes, benefits, software seats, recruitment, management time and cover during leave — is what an outsourced team actually replaces.
What a salary comparison leaves out
A bookkeeper on a $65,000 salary does not cost $65,000. Add employer payroll taxes, benefits, software licences, a recruitment fee amortised over expected tenure, the manager's time spent supervising, and the cost of cover during holiday and sick leave.
It also leaves out key-person risk. One bookkeeper means one point of failure: when they resign, the institutional knowledge of your ledger leaves with them, and the handover gap is typically where the next cleanup originates.
When an in-house hire is genuinely right
High transaction volume with heavy, business-specific process knowledge, or a finance function that needs to sit in daily operational meetings, is better served in-house. So is any business where finance is the product.
Most companies under roughly 50 staff, in our experience, need senior judgement a few days a month rather than a full-time person — which is exactly the shape that is hardest to hire for.
How the options actually differ.
| Salt | In-house hire | |
|---|---|---|
| CFO-level advisory | Separate service line | Only at CFO salary |
| Countries served | 10 countries | One jurisdiction per hire |
| Catch-up and cleanup projects | Yes | Rarely — no capacity |
Competitor capabilities are as published at the time of review and change without notice. Assessments of fit are our own opinion. Last verified .
Outsourced finance vs an in-house hire
Other comparisons
Get a written migration quote in 24 hours.
Tell us where you trade and what shape the books are in. You get scope, price and a start date in writing within one business day — no obligation.