For CTOs and engineering leaders

Executive Brief

Every platform hire
- is six figures and six months.

Demand on your platform team grows faster than the team does. The default fix is to hire, and a platform hire is expensive, takes months to recruit and ramp, and still leaves the same fragmented tooling and manual operating model behind it. Qovery turns the infrastructure you already own into a governed self-service platform, so the team you have supports more engineers, more environments and more agent-driven work.

At Alan, a four-person platform team supports roughly 250 product engineers - about 1:62, up from 1:30 three years earlier. Powens weighed tripling a five-person platform team and bought the operating model instead.

Build the business case See pricing

1:62

Product engineers per platform engineer at Alan

Four platform engineers support roughly 250 product engineers. The ratio was about 1:30 three years earlier, and the team did not triple to get here.

Instead of 3x

Powens chose Qovery over tripling its platform team

A five-person platform team facing the demand of a much larger engineering organization. They bought the operating model rather than the headcount.

90,000+

Deployments a year at Alan

Across ten clusters and about 170 applications on AWS and GCP, in production for roughly three years.

200+

Companies running Qovery in production

Including fintech, healthtech and insurance organizations under reliability, security or compliance pressure - each on its own cloud account.

Why engineering leaders choose Qovery

More output, without more platform headcount.

The question is not whether your team could build this. It is whether the next two hires and eighteen months of platform roadmap are the best use of either.

Capacity without hiring

The existing team supports a materially higher engineer-to-platform ratio
Developers and agents self-serve the work that does not need your specialists
Strategic platform work stops slipping behind the ticket queue
Hiring stays an option rather than the only way capacity grows

The cost of the alternative

Platform hires deferred or avoided, at fully loaded cost
Engineer time recovered from waiting and from infrastructure work
Internal platform code you no longer build, staff or maintain
Cloud waste removed by consistent environment lifecycle and teardown

Risk that scales with agent adoption

Agents raise change volume without raising your review capacity
Every operation attributed - human, pipeline or agent - in one log
Audit evidence exported rather than assembled per audit
Workloads and customer data stay in your own cloud account

Customer outcomes

Leaders who chose leverage.

1:62Engineers per platform engineer

"We had one full-time person dedicated to managing Beanstalk, which has completely disappeared. Now, we're able to do more with less."

Jean-Baptiste Barth - Infrastructure Lead, Alan

No DevOps hireNeeded at their stage

"We didn't have the internal competency, and setting up everything and implementing best practices would have required time and resources we didn't have at this stage."

Clément Garbay - Co-founder and CTO, Hyperline

RegulatedHealthcare, in production

"Previously, my SRE team needed to be extremely cautious about changes going to production. Now, we can feel much more confident."

Jack Miller - Director of SRE and Security, Talkspace

Own AWSAccount, no migration

"Qovery took all the infrastructure complexity off our engineers' shoulders, providing an intuitive solution that lets us focus on what we do best: developing great software."

Anar Bayramov - Staff Backend Engineer, Getsafe

Build vs. buy

Qovery vs. hiring and building it yourself

The comparison is your next two platform hires, the internal platform backlog, and the cost of delay.

With Qovery

hiring and building it yourself

Added capacity

The existing team supports more engineers

One hire, one additional pair of hands

Time to that capacity

Weeks

Months to recruit, then months to ramp

What the spend removes

Operational surface area

Nothing - the same tooling remains

Internal platform code

Maintained for you

Yours, indefinitely

Agent governance

Policy and attribution at the API boundary

A project nobody has scoped yet

Audit burden

Attributed operations, exportable

Assembled again for each audit

Key-person dependency

Standard operations any engineer can run

Grows with every bespoke script

Infrastructure ownership

Yours - your cloud, standard primitives

Yours, and so is every integration

See it in action

FAQ

We can build this ourselves.

You can. Building the interface is a fraction of the work; maintaining it across cloud changes, agent frameworks and audits is the larger cost, and it competes with your product roadmap every quarter.

Why not just hire two more people?

A hire adds a pair of hands. It does not remove operational surface area or create governed self-service, and it arrives in six months. Hiring is often still right - it should not be the only lever you have.

My platform team is fine.

Then the useful question is what they spend the week on. If a material share is requests that do not require their expertise, the constraint is the operating model rather than the people.

Why is this more than a deployment tool?

Because deployment is one operation, and it is the one already automated. What you are buying is the governed platform underneath - and the comparison is hiring, internal build and delayed initiatives, not the price of a deploy button.

Quantify it against the hire.

We will build the comparison from your numbers - your engineer-to-platform ratio, your planned hires, the initiatives waiting on capacity - rather than quote you a saving we have not validated together.