Table of Contents
The performance marketing agency vs. in-house debate is usually framed as a binary — you either hire an agency or build a team. The framing is wrong, and it leads to poor decisions. The real question is not which model is better in the abstract but which combination of internal and external resources matches your current growth stage, budget constraints, and the specific capabilities you actually need.
This guide works through the decision honestly: where agencies genuinely outperform in-house teams, where in-house teams hold a structural advantage, how to evaluate your own situation, and what real-world results look like when companies get the choice right.
What Each Model Actually Provides
Most comparisons of agencies versus in-house teams list surface-level pros and cons without acknowledging that both models deliver fundamentally different things. Understanding the structural difference explains why neither option is universally superior.
A performance marketing agency provides access to a team of specialists — strategists, media buyers, creative producers, data analysts — without the cost of building and retaining that team internally. It also provides something harder to replicate: the pattern recognition that comes from managing many campaigns across multiple verticals simultaneously. An agency running fifty acquisition programs sees which creative formats are working across categories, which platform algorithm changes are materialising in performance data before they’re announced, and which audience hypothesis tested on one client transfers to another. That cross-client intelligence is not available to an in-house team managing one brand.
An in-house team provides depth of context that an agency cannot match. Internal marketers understand the product roadmap, know why certain features exist, have direct access to customer success conversations, and can integrate marketing decisions with product, sales, and data teams in real time. They can also move faster on decisions that would require an agency briefing, approval round, and production cycle.
These are genuinely different capabilities. The right structure for your business depends on which gap is more expensive to leave unfilled.
Where Agencies Have a Structural Advantage
Creative Volume and Testing Infrastructure
Creative is now the primary performance variable in paid acquisition — platform data consistently shows creative accounting for 70–80% of campaign performance variance. Generating the creative volume required to run systematic testing across multiple hypotheses simultaneously, rotating out fatigued assets before they drag efficiency, and identifying winning formats within days rather than weeks requires production infrastructure that is extremely difficult to build at the same cost internally.
Agencies with AI-powered creative production workflows can generate fifty to one hundred variants monthly per client, run systematic A/B frameworks across hooks, formats, and value propositions, and bring production speed that an in-house designer or two cannot match regardless of skill. This isn’t a capability gap that closes with better hiring — it’s a structural infrastructure advantage that compounds over time as the testing surface grows.
Cross-Channel Platform Expertise
An in-house performance marketer at a mid-sized company has worked on one company’s campaigns across one set of channels. A senior agency media buyer may have managed hundreds of campaigns across Meta, Google, TikTok, Apple Search Ads, Snapchat, and programmatic platforms. The platform expertise gap — knowing not just how to operate a platform but how to structure campaigns for its specific algorithm, what bid strategies compound well, and where the platform’s own optimisation recommendations lead accounts astray — is real and meaningful.
This matters especially when entering a new channel. An agency that has scaled dozens of clients on TikTok can move from zero to effective campaign structure in weeks. An in-house team doing it for the first time is paying the learning curve tax with your budget.
Speed to Scale
When a company needs to scale paid acquisition rapidly — entering a new market, capitalising on a seasonal window, responding to a competitive threat — an agency can mobilise multi-channel capacity faster than a recruitment and onboarding process allows. The infrastructure exists; it just needs to be directed at your account. Building that infrastructure internally takes quarters, not weeks.
Where In-House Teams Hold the Advantage
Product and Customer Context
The deepest creative insights usually come from direct exposure to why customers buy, what objections they raise, and what product experiences generate the strongest retention. Internal marketers who sit in on sales calls, review support tickets, and participate in user research sessions have access to qualitative signals that agencies receive only in filtered, summarised form during briefings. This context advantage is real and directly affects creative strategy quality — knowing not just what your product does but the emotional resonance of the problem it solves is a significant creative input.
Real-Time Coordination with Product and Sales
When a new feature ships, a pricing change goes live, or a sales team identifies a new objection pattern, an in-house marketer can respond immediately. Agency response requires a briefing, a creative cycle, and an approval round. For companies where marketing and product decisions interact frequently, the coordination overhead of an agency relationship can slow response times in ways that matter competitively.
Long-Term Brand Consistency
Brand voice, tone, and positioning coherence across every touchpoint — ads, landing pages, onboarding, email, social — is easier to maintain when the same team is responsible for all of them. Agencies managing paid acquisition in isolation from the rest of the marketing stack can drift from brand guidelines or optimise ad creative toward performance metrics in ways that create inconsistencies with the brand experience elsewhere in the funnel.
Real Results: What Agency Partnerships Deliver at Scale
The strongest evidence for agency value is documented results from real programs. Two Admiral Media case studies illustrate what an external performance partner delivers when the engagement is structured correctly.
TIER Mobility: 5X Budget in Under 3 Months, +297% New Customers
TIER Mobility — the European micro-mobility company operating electric scooters and mopeds across multiple cities — came to Admiral Media with a clear challenge: they had started paid acquisition on Facebook with ambitious growth targets but lacked the multi-channel infrastructure and international expertise to scale at the speed the business required. Hyper-localisation across eight languages added complexity that went beyond what their internal team could manage alongside their other responsibilities.
The agency’s approach began with a systematic audit of TIER’s existing Facebook campaigns — analysing creative performance by audience segment, identifying which demographics were generating the best downstream conversion, and mapping where budget was being lost to underperforming combinations. From this foundation, Admiral built a channel expansion roadmap, adding Google and Snapchat to the existing Facebook program and establishing creative testing infrastructure that could operate across all three simultaneously.
Critical to the TIER result was how quickly the agency absorbed a structural disruption: iOS 14 privacy changes mid-engagement materially affected attribution fidelity across the industry. Rather than waiting for new baselines to establish themselves, the team adapted campaign structures and measurement approaches in real time — exactly the kind of response speed that depends on platform expertise accumulated across many accounts, not just one.
- +297% new customers — customer acquisition volume nearly tripled from the program baseline
- 5X budget scaling in less than three months — spend grew dramatically while maintaining acquisition economics
- +2 new channels — Google and Snapchat added alongside Facebook, expanding the acquisition surface and reducing single-channel dependency
- 8 languages — multilingual creative and copy infrastructure built and managed across all target markets
Vincent Adorian of TIER noted: “Admiral is one of the few partners who are literally no bullshit” — capturing the operational reality that at the speed TIER needed to move, there was no room for an agency that managed optics instead of outcomes. The TIER result demonstrates the specific scenario where agency value is highest: a company that needs to build multi-channel acquisition infrastructure and scale it rapidly, faster than internal hiring and training would allow.
Fastic: From Near Zero to 1 Million Users, +1,655% Purchases
Fastic — the intermittent fasting app that became one of the largest community-based fasting platforms globally — needed to scale from near-zero paid acquisition to one million users as fast as possible. The challenge was not just spending more; it was identifying the right channels, audiences, and creative angles for a wellness product in a crowded category where the difference between compelling messaging and ignored noise is the margin between efficient scale and wasted budget.
Admiral started with the three highest-signal channels for a consumer subscription app — Facebook, Google, and Apple Search Ads — to build the initial data foundation. Rather than spreading budget thin across many channels immediately, this concentrated approach generated meaningful performance data on audience segments and creative angles before expanding. Once the core channels were performing consistently, the team expanded into Snapchat, Pinterest, TikTok, and native advertising, each channel opened at the point where cross-channel data supported the hypothesis that it would reach incremental audiences cost-effectively.
The results across a six-month period from December 2019 to May 2020 illustrate what systematic multi-channel acquisition looks like when channel expansion is data-driven rather than opportunistic:
- +639% installs — install volume grew more than sixfold as channel expansion and creative optimisation compounded
- +952% monthly active users — active user base grew nearly tenfold, confirming that install volume gains translated to genuinely engaged users
- +1,655% purchases — subscription purchase volume grew by more than sixteen times from the baseline
- +439% revenue — total revenue from paid channels grew fourfold, validating that the acquisition economics held through the scaling process
- -50% cost per purchase — cost efficiency improved dramatically even as volume was scaling, a combination that defines successful performance marketing
Fastic is a clear illustration of the scenario where an agency provides value that an early-stage in-house team structurally cannot: multi-channel expertise across six platforms simultaneously, creative production capacity to test across enough variants to find what works in a competitive category, and the data infrastructure to manage a program that grew from near-zero to significant scale within months.
The Hybrid Model: Why Most Companies Land Here
The binary framing of agency versus in-house obscures the model that most effectively scaling companies actually use: a lean internal team focused on strategy, brand, and coordination, with an external agency managing channel execution and creative production.
This structure captures the genuine advantages of both models. The internal team provides product context, customer insight, and brand coherence. The agency provides channel expertise, creative infrastructure, and the cross-client pattern recognition that compounds with scale. Coordination overhead is the main cost — managing an agency relationship well requires internal time — but for companies at meaningful acquisition scale, this overhead is far lower than the cost of building equivalent agency capabilities internally.
The internal role in a hybrid model is not a junior marketing coordinator routing briefs between teams. It requires a senior performance marketer or growth lead who understands what good agency work looks like, can evaluate creative strategy and performance data critically, and has the product context to brief the agency on what matters without a multi-week onboarding for every new campaign angle.
A Decision Framework by Company Stage
Rather than a universal answer, the right structure depends on where you are and what you need most right now.
If you are pre-product-market-fit, below €10,000/month in ad spend, and still validating whether paid acquisition works for your model, an agency relationship is premature. The data volume is too low for agency optimisation cycles to compound effectively, and the strategic questions you need to answer are better resolved through direct founder-level experimentation. A specialist freelancer on one channel is a more appropriate investment at this stage.
If you are post-PMF, growing, and running €20,000–€100,000/month in ad spend, a performance marketing agency is likely the highest-leverage investment you can make. You have the data volume for optimisation to work, the channels to make creative testing meaningful, and the growth trajectory that makes the compounding effect of better performance valuable. This is the sweet spot where TIER and Fastic were when they engaged Admiral Media.
If you are at scale — €100,000+/month in ad spend, multi-market, multi-channel — the question is not agency versus in-house but how to structure the hybrid most effectively. A Head of Growth internally, supported by a specialist agency for channel execution and creative production, is the model that most companies at this scale find outperforms either pure approach.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is it cheaper to hire in-house or use a performance marketing agency?
At early stages, the comparison is misleading — a single in-house hire cannot replicate the multi-channel coverage of an agency. At growth stage, a properly scoped agency relationship typically costs less than building equivalent capability internally when you factor in recruiting costs, salaries, benefits, tool licenses, and the ongoing training required to keep an in-house team current on platform changes. At scale, a hybrid model — internal growth lead plus agency execution — usually provides the best cost-to-capability ratio. The in-house-only option only becomes genuinely cost-competitive at very large scale, when the volume of work justifies multiple senior specialists across each channel.
How quickly can a performance marketing agency get up to speed on our product?
A structured onboarding with a quality agency takes two to four weeks for basic platform access, creative briefing, and audience research. Deeper product context — understanding customer psychology, the competitive landscape, what drives retention versus churn — develops over the first sixty to ninety days of active campaign management as the team sees what performs and what doesn’t. The onboarding period is a real cost, but it is typically shorter than the recruiting and ramp-up process for equivalent in-house hires, particularly for senior performance specialists.
What happens to performance if we switch from agency to in-house mid-program?
Transitions carry risk. The institutional knowledge an agency accumulates — which creative angles have been tested, what audiences are fatigued, which campaign structures are performing — is partially documented in campaign accounts but partially held by the team managing them. A structured transition with an overlap period, thorough documentation requirements, and a handover timeline of sixty to ninety days minimises disruption. Transitions done abruptly — because of contract disputes or rushed internal hiring decisions — routinely cause six-to-twelve months of performance degradation while an in-house team rebuilds the optimisation foundation.
Can a small company afford a performance marketing agency?
At meaningful ad spend levels (above €15,000–€20,000/month in total platform spend), a performance marketing agency typically pays for itself through efficiency improvements that reduce effective CPA. Below that threshold, the data volume is insufficient for the optimisation cycle to compound effectively, and the agency fee represents a high percentage of total program budget. Small companies with limited budgets are better served by a focused specialist or boutique agency on one channel rather than a full-service program spread thin across insufficient spend.
What should I look for when evaluating whether to hire an agency or build in-house?
Three questions clarify the decision: First, do you need multi-channel capability immediately, or can you start with one channel? Multi-channel from the start almost always requires an agency. Second, how quickly do you need to scale? If the answer is months rather than years, building an in-house team is too slow. Third, do you have a senior internal marketer who can effectively manage an agency relationship and evaluate their work critically? Without this capability internally, agency relationships tend toward managed drift rather than optimised performance. If you can answer yes to all three in favour of in-house, build internally. If any answer points to agency, that is your answer.
