Holdfast vs Turing
The core difference
Turing’s pitch is matching: it places vetted remote engineers into your team and you run them. Holdfast’s pitch is delivery: we scope, build, and ship a feature by a guaranteed date. You are buying placement from one and an outcome from the other.
Who carries the risk
When you hire through a marketplace, the delivery risk stays with you. If the project slips, that is your problem to manage. Holdfast moves that risk onto us with a written refund clause: miss day 14 and the fee comes back.
Management overhead
A placed engineer still needs onboarding, direction, code review, and a manager. If you have that capacity, a marketplace stretches further. If you do not, an outcome-based studio removes the overhead entirely.
The differences, line by line.
| Dimension | Holdfast | Turing |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing model | Fixed price per shipped feature, 14,000 dollars | Monthly rate per matched engineer |
| Minimum commitment | One sprint, or month to month for embedded | Ongoing engagement model |
| Conversion fee to hire | Zero, hire anyone any time | Hiring terms set by contract |
| Delivery guarantee | Money back if we miss day 14 | None |
| Who runs your intro call | The founder, every time | A sales or account team |
| AI tooling transparency | Published toolchain, AI time-saved logged per sprint | Not disclosed |
When to choose Turing
Choose Turing if your bottleneck is sourcing remote engineers at scale and you have the in-house management to direct them. If you need to fill several seats and run them yourself, a matching marketplace is built for exactly that.
Holdfast vs Turing, in short.
For embedded engagements we match a senior engineer to your stack. The difference is we also manage delivery and guarantee sprint deadlines.
Think Holdfast is the fit?
Send a one-page brief. A fixed price and a ship date back by morning, with no marketplace contract.