Hiring in-house delivers the deepest product knowledge. The developers absorb your domain over months and mvp development company years, and this context remains with you. The price is slow hiring and fixed price vs time and materials overhead: filling a senior role is slow, onboarding takes several more weeks, and the cost carries on through the quiet quarters.
Project outsourcing is the arrangement where the vendor owns delivery: the partner staffs the roles, the partner manages the day-to-day work, and the provider carries the risk of missing the date. This works well when the scope is reasonably clear and there is an available product owner. It fails when the requirements change weekly, as the provider is not able to invent your business rules.
dedicated team model extension sits between the two: you add engineers and keep the management in-house. The main advantage is speed — a suitable engineer can join almost immediately — and it winds down as quickly as it ramped up. The catch is that your own leads have to have the capacity to direct the work. Without strong internal leadership, you are paying hourly for uncoordinated work.
In practice, the models mix. A frequent arrangement holds the architecture and the core domain with permanent staff, while a partner takes on peaks, well-defined modules or platform work. The rule is simple enough: keep what defines your product, and contract out the well-trodden work.
A few questions generally decide the matter. Start here: is this rust software development company the product itself, or a supporting tool? Second: how long will you need this capacity — a quarter or a decade? Third: who will maintain it in two years? Work through them with real answers and the right arrangement is normally clear.