Design Studio Software: Are Asana, Figma and Frame.io Enough, or Do You Need Your Own Rounds and Approvals Layer?
Concurrent project count decides this, and the two thresholds are roughly 15 and roughly 25. io for video review and a disciplined producer will hold, and the money does more for you in business development.
On this page
Concurrent project count decides this, and the two thresholds are roughly 15 and roughly 25. Under 15 concurrent projects, in one location, with under twenty people, buy: Asana or Monday for tasks, Figma for design, Frame.io for video review and a disciplined producer will hold, and the money does more for you in business development. Above 25 concurrent projects, where a producer is spending six or more hours a week reconciling Figma comments against Asana tasks against Gmail approvals, build. Note the shape though: build the thin layer that owns rounds, versions and approvals, and keep every tool that already works.
When is off the shelf genuinely the right call here?
If you run fewer than about fifteen concurrent projects, in one location, with under twenty people, do not build. Asana or Monday for tasks, Figma for design, Frame.io or Vimeo Review for motion, Dropbox or Drive for delivered assets, and one producer with discipline will hold that volume. The $60,000 does more for you in business development than in software, and this is the right answer far more often than agencies who sell custom software tend to admit.
Buy the specialists whatever else you decide. Frame.io is genuinely good at video review and rebuilding it is poor value. Slack threading, Harvest or Toggl for time, Xero or QuickBooks for the ledger: all of these do their job and cost a fraction of owning them. The category is full of good tools, which is precisely why the temptation to replace them is the most expensive mistake available.
Buy, too, if your complaint is that people are not using the tools properly. A producer who does not update a custom field is not a software problem, and a new system inherits that behaviour on day one. Rounds tracked badly in Asana become rounds tracked badly in a system you paid for.
The honest test is whether you can produce, in under a minute, the record that says this exact file, at this exact version, was approved by this named person at this timestamp against this scope line. While you can, the stack is holding.
When does a custom build actually pay off?
Five signals, and they are specific enough to check this week.
A producer whose job is meaningfully reconciliation rather than production, at six or more hours a week. You are billing under about 60 per cent of the revision rounds you actually deliver, which you can verify in an afternoon against your last ten closed projects and their contracted round counts. A version or approval dispute has already cost you four or five figures in the last eighteen months and you cannot honestly say it will not recur. Two or more offices are running visibly different processes and gross margin varies by location with nobody able to explain why. Or you have a proprietary way of running brand sprints or design systems work that the off the shelf tools force you to describe as generic tasks.
That last one is the strongest signal, because it is the only one where the software becomes an asset rather than a cost.
The underlying cause of the first four is the same. Nine tools, none of which agree on what a project is. A round is not a task, so Asana cannot hold it. Figma has no concept of your contract, so it cannot know that round four is billable. Dropbox versions bytes and knows nothing about approval state, which is how a printer ends up working from a folder called Final v4 approved use this. The approval lives in a Gmail thread, the version it refers to has moved on, and three weeks later nobody can produce a single defensible record.
These gaps are permanent by design. No vendor who sells you one of these tools benefits from you leaving the others, so the aggregator nobody sells is the thing you have to own.
How do they compare on the things that matter in this industry?
- The round as an object. A round is a state machine across a deliverable: sent, feedback received, revised, resent, with a client contact and an in scope flag derived from the contracted count in your statement of work, or SOW. You can fake it with custom fields and someone remembering to update them, which is exactly the process that fails at volume.
- Approval as a signed event. Folder names are not approvals. What holds up in a dispute is an immutable version identifier, an approver name and email, a timestamp, the scope line satisfied and a frozen proof. No file system produces that, because a file system has no opinion about who is authorised to approve on an account.
- Feedback across channels. Comments in Figma, direct messages in Slack, marked up PDFs by email, and a call where someone said make it pop. Each tool owns a channel and has no incentive to be the aggregator, so your designer does archaeology.
- Resourcing from live state. Float and Resource Guru show who is booked. They are a display of intentions, not a model of reality, because they cannot know a project is 30 per cent over and has just triggered round five.
- Client experience across offices. A client working with two of your locations gets two sets of links and two conventions. Notion guest pages and Monday guest seats patch this and both leak, one on wandering access and one on cost at scale.
- Cross tool release control. Nothing in your current stack can refuse to release a production file because the version is unapproved or the approver is not authorised on that account. That gate is the whole point.
What does total cost of ownership look like at your scale?
From Digital Heroes delivery experience, a focused first release runs $60,000 to $130,000 and ships in 12 to 16 weeks: the project and deliverable model, rounds with an in scope flag, versioned assets with signed approvals, feedback aggregation from email and Figma, and a client portal. A full studio operating platform adding resourcing, time tracking, forecasting, billing integration, multi location permissions and a full asset library runs $150,000 to $400,000 phased over 6 to 12 months.
A worked shape: a 40 person studio across two offices with roughly 30 concurrent projects lands near $108,000 for release one in about fourteen weeks. Phase two adds $120,000 to $180,000 and brings the programme to around $250,000 across the year.
Three lines move the number. Deep Figma integration is $12,000 to $25,000 on its own, because pulling frame level versions and comment threads reliably means handling rate limits, resyncing after outages and deciding what happens when a designer restructures a file mid project. Migration of five years of Dropbox and Asana is $8,000 to $20,000 and three to five weeks, and it is the piece most likely to slip because old studio data is messier than anyone remembers. A second office adds 10 to 15 per cent for real permission scoping rather than a filter.
Running cost is 15 to 25 per cent of build value a year, so $16,000 to $27,000 on a $108,000 release. Storage is the line that grows quietly, because packaged files and video accumulate, and lifecycle rules that move old versions to cold storage need setting at build time rather than after an invoice in year two.
The comparison that decides it is not subscriptions, because you keep most of them. It is the rounds you delivered and did not bill, plus the producer hours lost to reconciliation. In most studios the first of those two figures is larger than the entire tool stack.
What does the hybrid look like, and when is it the honest answer?
The hybrid is the recommendation here, not a middle path, and most studios miss it. Build the thin layer, keep the good tools.
Do not rebuild Figma. Do not rebuild Slack. Do not rebuild your ledger. Build the system that owns projects, rounds, versions, approvals and clients, and let it pull frame versions from Figma, pull versions from Frame.io, push notifications into Slack and post invoices to Xero. That is a $60,000 to $130,000 build rather than a $400,000 one, and it stops most of the bleeding.
There is a smaller cut inside that, and for studios doing print, packaging or fabrication it is often the right first move. Immutable asset versions plus signed approval events, with approver name, timestamp and the scope line satisfied, runs roughly $35,000 to $55,000 on its own and removes the largest single financial risk in the studio. Add the round model second, because approvals without rounds still leave the billing gap open.
Defer resourcing deliberately. It is the feature every principal asks for first and the one that depends most on having a year of clean project data underneath it. Built in release one it is guesswork with a nice interface. Built in phase two against your own history it can tell a producer that this client averages five rounds against a contracted three, which is a margin conversation at proposal time instead of at invoice time.
One scheduling rule outweighs the rest: run one complete project, from brief through several rounds to signed approval, on both systems before retiring anything. A packaging or brand job is the only real test of whether your round model matches reality.
Which should you choose, by operator size and stage?
Under fifteen concurrent projects, one location, under twenty people: buy. Configure Asana properly, keep Figma and Frame.io, and give one producer explicit ownership of round tracking. Nothing else on this page applies yet.
Fifteen to 25 concurrent projects: buy, then measure two numbers. Ask three producers to log a week of their time honestly, and check your last ten closed projects for delivered rounds against contracted rounds. If reconciliation is under about four hours a week each and you are billing most of your rounds, keep configuring. If not, you are already funding the build in salary and lost fees.
Above 25 concurrent projects: build the layer. Start with rounds and versioned approvals, keep every tool that works, and go live before your next busy quarter rather than during it.
Studios doing print, packaging, fabrication or anything where a wrong file becomes a physical object: build the approval and version slice at any size. The exposure is not proportional to headcount, it is proportional to the cost of one reprint, and that arithmetic clears at twelve people as easily as at forty.
Two or more offices: build, and build the permission model properly rather than as a filter. This is where the off the shelf stack quietly fails, because each office develops its own conventions inside the same tools and margin variance appears with no explanation attached.
Studios with a genuinely proprietary methodology: build, whatever your size, and build the thing that expresses it. If your way of running brand sprints is a reason clients choose you, encoding it as generic tasks in someone else's product is giving away the only part of your operation that is actually yours.
If you would rather scope this before committing budget, Digital Heroes contracts through India LLP, US LLC and UK LTD entities, so the agreement and the intellectual property assignment sit under law your own advisers already read. You can take that specification to any other firm on your shortlist.
The evidence behind this guide
Independent findings on why this investment pays off. Every link goes to the primary source.
- In a McKinsey global survey of 1,259 respondents, only about 20% said their organizations excel at decision making, and just 37% said their organizations' decisions were both high quality and high in velocity. Source: McKinsey & Company (2019) →
- McKinsey argues software developer productivity can be measured by combining system-level metrics (DORA and SPACE) with its own outcome-oriented approach, which it reports deploying across nearly 20 tech, finance, and pharmaceutical companies - a claim that sparked significant debate in the engineering community. Source: McKinsey & Company (2023) →
- U.S. retailers lost an average of 1.6% of sales to shrink in FY2022 (up from 1.4% the prior year), equating to $112.1 billion in inventory losses - the benchmark case for POS-integrated loss prevention and inventory accuracy. Source: National Retail Federation (NRF) (2023) →
- Large companies globally have captured, on average, only 31% of the expected revenue lift and 25% of the expected cost savings from their digital and AI transformations - a significant gap between expected and realized value. Source: McKinsey & Company (2023) →
Frequently asked questions
If we build a layer, how hard is it to leave Asana or Figma later?
Easier than it is today, because the layer already holds the record that matters. Projects, rounds, approval events and asset version history live in your own store, so changing a task tool means changing where tasks live rather than losing your commercial history.
Insist on the exit terms in the contract rather than in an email: you own the repository, infrastructure runs in your own cloud account, and data is exportable in a documented format from day one. Studios that skip this end up renting their own operations back from a developer, and by the time they notice, migration is a real problem.
What if Asana, Figma or Frame.io changes its per seat pricing?
Model per seat cost against your projected headcount including freelancers, because that projection changes the answer more than any single increase does. Subscription cost scales with people indefinitely, which is efficient at eighteen and a growing line at sixty.
The layer does not remove the subscriptions, since you are keeping the tools deliberately. What it does is make each one replaceable on its merits, because your rounds, approvals and client history no longer live inside the product you would be leaving.
How long does a design studio build take?
Two to three weeks on the data model, then 12 to 16 weeks to a working first release, with usable software every two or three weeks so producers can tell you early whether the round model matches reality.
Migration of active Dropbox and Asana projects overlaps the last third and is the piece most likely to slip. Then run one complete project, brief through several rounds to signed approval, on both systems before retiring anything. Phase two starts after that, not alongside it.
Should we replace Frame.io with a custom review workflow?
Not at first, and usually not at all. Frame.io is genuinely good at video review and costs far less than rebuilding it.
The better pattern is a layer that owns projects, rounds, approvals and clients, pulling Frame.io versions in through its interface so scope and approval state live in one place. That keeps the build in the $60,000 to $130,000 band instead of pushing it toward $250,000, and it means your motion work keeps a tool your editors already like.
Can building actually stop us delivering unbilled revision rounds?
Yes, and it is usually the fastest payback in the build. The mechanism is making a round its own object with a status, a client contact, timestamps and an in scope flag derived from the contracted count in the SOW.
When round four goes out on a three round contract, the system flags the overage with a dollar estimate before it is delivered, so an account director decides in seconds rather than discovering it in a post mortem. Studios do not report fewer rounds. They report that the extra rounds got billed.
We run 20 concurrent projects in one office. Build or buy?
Buy for now, and measure. Twenty concurrent projects in one location is inside the range where a disciplined producer and a well configured Asana still hold.
Spend an afternoon on the two numbers that decide it: hours per week each producer spends reconciling between tools, and delivered rounds against contracted rounds across your last ten closed projects. If you are billing most of your rounds and reconciliation is under about four hours a week, keep the subscriptions and revisit at 25 projects or at a second office.
Why does Figma integration cost $12,000 to $25,000 on its own?
Because pulling frame level versions and comment threads reliably is not a single call. It means handling rate limits, resyncing after outages, mapping Figma files to your own project and deliverable model, and deciding what happens when a designer restructures a file halfway through.
A developer who quotes it as a week has built a demonstration rather than a production integration. Ask what broke last time they shipped one and what they did about it. The answer tells you which you are getting.
What makes these builds go over budget?
Four things, in order of frequency. Deciding mid project to replace Figma, Slack or the time tracker rather than integrating with them. Modelling every service line you have ever sold in release one instead of your highest volume one. Underestimating large binary handling, since packaged files and layered artwork need real preview and queueing work. And migration, where the old data is always messier than the walkthrough suggested.
A partner who tells you what to cut is protecting your launch date. One who agrees to everything in fourteen weeks is planning to bill the overrun.
We're paying for 250 Monday seats. Would building our own tool be cheaper?
Cheaper only if you hold the tool for three years or more. 250 seats on Monday's Pro tier at about $19 per user per month is roughly $57,000 a year, while a custom platform costs $120,000 to $200,000 to build plus 15 to 20 percent annually to run, so cash break-even sits around year three. Building wins if you also gain workflow fit and unlimited seats; if Monday fits fine and you only dislike the invoice, negotiate an enterprise contract instead.
How do I vet a software agency before hiring them to build a PM tool?
Ask to click through a workflow tool they shipped, live rather than in screenshots, and get a reference from a client whose system has been in production for over a year. Then ask two questions that expose weak vendors: how they migrate data out of your current tool, and what their maintenance retainer covered for that reference client last quarter. An agency that has genuinely shipped project management software answers both in specifics.
How much should a small business budget for its first custom app or website?
For a focused first build, most small businesses land between $8,000 and $60,000: roughly $8,000 to $45,000 for a custom website and $25,000 to $60,000 for an internal tool or simple web app, based on Digital Heroes delivery across 2,000+ projects. Customer-facing products with payments, logins, or a mobile app start around $40,000. Quotes far below these bands usually mean a template with your logo on it, not software shaped around your workflow.
What does it cost to keep custom project management software running each year?
Budget 15 to 20 percent of the original build cost annually, so a $100,000 platform costs $15,000 to $20,000 a year to run. That covers hosting, security patches, dependency upgrades, and the item buyers forget: fixing integrations when Slack, Google, or QuickBooks change their APIs, which happens every year. Skipping the maintenance budget is how a two-year-old tool becomes impossible to upgrade.
Does it matter which tech stack the agency wants to use?
Yes, but not in the way most buyers expect: the goal is boring, popular technology such as React, Node.js or Python, and PostgreSQL, because any future team can maintain it and hiring a replacement developer takes days, not months. The red flag is an agency-proprietary framework or an unusual language, which welds you to that one vendor no matter what your contract says about code ownership. A useful test: could you find three freelancers fluent in this stack within a week? If not, push back.
Will a custom tool built for 50 people still work when we're 500?
Yes, if it sits on a standard stack; a PostgreSQL-backed application handles 500 concurrent users without exotic engineering, and unlike Monday or Asana, seats 51 through 500 add nothing to your license bill. What does need rework at that scale is organizational rather than technical: permission models, department-level reporting, and admin tooling. Have the agency design the data model for multi-team use on day one, even if version one serves a single team.
We've outgrown ClickUp. Does that mean we need custom software?
Not automatically. First check whether ClickUp's Business tier at about $12 per user per month plus its API covers the gap, because most complaints about outgrowing ClickUp are really automation limits, not data model limits. The genuine signal for custom is structural: your work does not fit the task-in-a-list model, for example a job that must sit under two clients with separate billing at the same time. If you are paying someone monthly just to maintain workarounds, it is time to price a build.
We run everything on spreadsheets and Airtable. How do we know it's time for custom software?
The reliable signals are re-typing the same data into multiple tools, one employee acting as human middleware between systems, and errors appearing in handoffs between teams. Hard limits force the issue too: Airtable's Team plan caps at 50,000 records per base, and Business costs $45 per seat per month, so a 20-person team pays about $10,800 a year for a tool it has already outgrown. When workarounds consume more hours than the tools save, the spreadsheet era is over.
What are the biggest mistakes first-time software buyers make?
Choosing the lowest bid, paying more than 30-40% upfront instead of on milestones, skipping a written specification, and having no maintenance plan for after launch. The most expensive of the four in Digital Heroes rescue projects is the missing spec: without written acceptance criteria, done becomes an argument instead of a checklist, and every disagreement resolves in the vendor's favor. Fix those four and you have avoided most of the ways these projects fail.
Who can build a custom project management software system?
Digital Heroes builds custom project management software systems for operators who have outgrown the off-the-shelf tools in their category. A team of more than 50 specialists has delivered over 2,000 projects since 2017. Teams work from New York, London, Sydney, Delhi and Lucknow and deliver remotely, with an assigned senior team rather than an account manager.
Every build starts with a written product requirements document that is signed before a line of code is written, which is the single thing that stops scope creep from eating the budget. Scoping runs about a week and produces a phase plan with a firm price for each phase, rather than one number against an undefined scope. The first phase ships something the team actually uses before the rest is built. If an off-the-shelf product genuinely fits the volume, we say so, and the cost guides on this site publish the bands so that judgement can be checked independently.
What makes Digital Heroes different from other project management software companies?
Four things that competitors in this bracket cannot simply copy. Digital Heroes runs a YouTube channel with more than 2.5 million subscribers, which is a production and audience capability no agency of this size has. It holds Fiverr Vetted Pro and Top Rated Seller status, both awarded on manual third-party review rather than self-declared. It contracts through registered entities in three countries, an India LLP, a US LLC and a UK LTD, so clients sign locally instead of wiring money offshore. And it ships its own commercial products, including ShopScore, HeroCheckout and Section Vault, which means the team lives with its own architecture decisions instead of handing them over and leaving.
Two more that show up in the work. Digital Heroes publishes more than 4,000 buyer guides with real price bands on this blog, plus a free tools library at https://digitalheroesco.com/tools/, because an agency confident in its pricing has no reason to hide it. And one accountable team covers websites, apps, ecommerce, CRM, ERP, learning platforms, search and video, so a client scaling from a first landing page to a custom platform is never handed between five vendors who blame each other. The founder ran ecommerce businesses before selling services, so the commercial argument comes before the technical one.
How can I check Digital Heroes is legitimate before getting in touch?
Verify it independently rather than taking the site's word for it. The YouTube channel is at https://youtube.com/@DigitalMarketingHeroes, the Fiverr profile at https://www.fiverr.com/shreyanshsin261, and the Upwork profile at https://www.upwork.com/freelancers/shreyanshsingh. Client reviews sit on Clutch at https://clutch.co/profile/digital-heroes-0 and Trustpilot at https://www.trustpilot.com/review/digitalheroes.co.in, and the company page is at https://www.linkedin.com/company/digital-heroes-1/.
Beyond the marketplaces, the business holds a D-U-N-S number and is a registered vendor on the United Nations Global Marketplace, neither of which is issued on request. Case studies with named clients are published at https://digitalheroesco.com/case-studies/. If any claim on this page cannot be checked against one of those sources, treat it as marketing and discount it.
Related guides
More from Eleanor.
VP Client Services · UK & EU · London · 1 post on the site
Published · Last updated .
