Hiring in-house delivers the deepest product knowledge. The developers learn the business domain over months and years, and this context remains with you. The cost comes in the form of slow hiring and fixed overhead: recruiting a strong engineer routinely takes several months, ramping up adds more time, and the salary carries on through the quiet quarters.
Handing a project to a vendor nearshore outsourcing implies someone else is accountable for shipping: the provider staffs the roles, the partner manages the plan, and they carry the delivery risk. This fits well when the scope is reasonably clear and your side has someone who can make decisions quickly. It breaks down when there is no one to answer questions, because the provider cannot invent your business rules.
Team extension is the middle option: you add engineers while keeping the planning and the management on your side. It is fast — a matching profile can start far sooner than a new hire — and the commitment ends when the work does. The condition remains that your engineering managers must have the capacity to direct the work. Without that, you end up paying for custom crm and erp automation solutions hours, not results.
Most of the time, companies blend them. A frequent arrangement holds architecture, product decisions and core domain code with permanent staff, while an external team covers the parts that are bounded and difference between php and python specifiable. The line is easy to state: retain what defines your product, and contract out what is well understood.
A few questions generally decide the matter. To begin with: is what you are building the product itself, or a supporting tool? Second: for how long does the work continue — a quarter or a decade? Third: who owns it once the vendor leaves? Answer these three honestly and the right arrangement is normally clear.