"We'll build exactly what we need."
vs
You'll build exactly what you think you need—based on your current understanding of the problem. But sales AI requirements evolve rapidly. What seems like the right feature set today will be incomplete in three months. By the time you've built v1, the market has moved on. Ava evolves with the market because we're dedicated to this problem full-time.
"It's just LLM APIs plus some custom logic."
vs
Anyone who's actually built production AI knows it's never "just" APIs. You need: prompt engineering, context management, hallucination prevention, fact-checking systems, output validation, error handling, rate limiting, cost optimization, security controls, and monitoring. Then you need: sales domain training data, conversation flow logic, CRM integration, real-time inference, and user experience design. What seems like a few weeks of work becomes a multi-quarter project—then ongoing maintenance forever.
"Our engineering team can handle it."
vs
Your engineering team can definitely build it—they're talented. But here's the question: Should they? Every hour spent building sales AI is an hour not spent building your core product, serving your customers, or differentiating your business. This isn't about capability—it's about opportunity cost. Unless you're a sales AI company, this isn't your differentiator.
"We'll save money building in-house."
vs
Let's do the math. Conservatively: 2 engineers × 6 months × $200K average salary = $200K in development cost. Add data science expertise, infrastructure, API costs, and ongoing maintenance—you're easily at $300-500K in year one. Ava costs a fraction of that and works immediately. The ROI isn't close.