How to Estimate App Development Cost (Realistic Breakdown for India)

A quick guess in a meeting

This usually happens when someone asks for a number on the spot and the team throws out a rough figure just to keep things moving. No breakdown, no thinking time. These “meeting estimates” are almost always wrong and later create pressure and blame.

Based on past memory

We tend to compare it with an old project and assume the effort will be similar. But every project has different edge cases, integrations, and client expectations. Memory-based estimates ignore these differences and quietly double the workload.

Without breaking down the real work

When tasks aren’t split into smaller pieces, hidden effort gets missed—testing, fixes, deployment, and revisions. On paper it looks simple, but execution takes much longer. This is the biggest reason timelines and budgets slip.

I’ve done it myself.

Someone says, “It’s just a simple app.”

Also, in India specifically, there’s constant price pressure. Founders expect lower budgets because “developers are cheaper here.” But time isn’t cheaper. Complexity isn’t cheaper.

Another issue: we estimate features, not effort.

These are easily 40–60% of total time.

That’s where most overruns come from.

1. Estimating only “coding time”

Most developers calculate how long it takes to write the code and forget everything else around it. But real projects include discussions, testing, bug fixes, deployments, and back-and-forth changes. Coding is usually just half the effort, so estimates based only on build time almost always fall short.

“I can build this in 10 days.”

Yes — coding only.

But real life includes:

So 10 days becomes 20–25 days.

2. Copy-paste estimates from old projects

It’s tempting to reuse numbers from a similar past project and assume the effort will match. But even small differences in scope, tech stack, or client expectations change the workload a lot. These recycled estimates almost always miss hidden work and lead to delays later.

“I built something similar before.”

No two projects are similar.

Different clients → different changes → different delays.

Even small requirement differences double effort.

3. Saying yes to keep the client happy

Teams often agree to lower costs or tighter timelines just to win the project or avoid conflict. It feels safe in the moment, but it usually means unpaid overtime and constant stress later. Overcommitting to please the client almost always hurts the team more than it helps the relationship.

Especially in Indian agencies.

We underquote because:

• afraid to lose the deal
• competitors quote lower
• founder wants a quick number

I’ve seen teams win projects at low cost… then lose money for 6 months maintaining them.

4. Ignoring maintenance

Most teams estimate only the initial build and forget what happens after launch. But bug fixes, small tweaks, updates, and server issues keep coming every month. Ignoring maintenance makes the project look cheaper upfront, but it quietly drains time and money later.

Teams estimate build cost only.

But year one usually includes:

• bug fixes
• server issues
• small features
• OS updates
• support calls

Maintenance easily adds 20–30% extra.

Nobody budgets for it.

Step 1 – Break work into tasks, not features

Features sound small on paper but hide a lot of actual work underneath. Splitting them into clear tasks—API, database, UI, testing, deployment—shows the real effort involved. Once you see everything listed out, your estimates become far more realistic and harder to underestimate.

When you break it down, “2 days” becomes “6 days” — which is closer to reality.

Step 2 – Add a default buffer (non-negotiable)

No matter how well you plan, unexpected issues always show up—bugs, changes, delays, or rework. A fixed buffer protects the timeline and keeps the team from constant pressure. Treat it as mandatory, not optional, because real projects never go exactly as planned.

Without it, you’re guaranteed to slip.

Step 3 – Estimate in time first, money later

Start by calculating how many hours or days the work will actually take, without thinking about budget limits. Once the time is realistic, convert it into cost based on your team’s rates. Estimating money first usually forces you to shrink the scope artificially and leads to underquoting.

Don’t start with rupees.

Then convert.

Otherwise you unconsciously shrink scope to fit the budget.

Step 4 – Separate build vs maintenance

The initial build is only part of the cost; keeping the app running takes ongoing effort. Bug fixes, updates, small improvements, and support requests continue long after launch. Separating these costs sets clear expectations and prevents your team from doing unpaid work later.

Clients understand better. And your team doesn’t work free later.

Step 5 – Use ranges, not fixed promises

Giving one fixed number creates pressure because real projects rarely stay perfectly on scope. A realistic range allows flexibility for small changes and unknowns without constant renegotiation. It sets honest expectations and protects both you and the client from surprises.

Instead of:

“₹10 lakhs”

Say:

“₹10–13 lakhs depending on changes”

It gives breathing room and avoids stress later.

Very early-stage startups

At this stage, requirements change almost every week as the product and business model evolve. Any detailed estimate becomes outdated quickly because priorities keep shifting. Fixed timelines rarely work here, so flexible billing or short iterations are usually safer.

If requirements change daily, even detailed estimates fail.

In these cases, hourly billing or monthly retainers work better.

Fixed-bid government/enterprise contracts

These projects usually demand strict scope, paperwork, and a locked price upfront. But requirements still change, approvals take time, and dependencies slow everything down. With no flexibility in budget or timeline, the risk falls entirely on the team, which often leads to stress and thin margins.

Sometimes they demand fixed numbers.

There’s no magic solution.

Tiny one-week projects

For very small tasks, detailed estimation and heavy planning usually waste more time than the work itself. The overhead of breaking everything down isn’t worth it. A quick rough estimate and fast execution is often more practical for these short, low-risk jobs.

Over-planning isn’t worth it. Quick rough estimates are fine.

Track actual vs estimated time

After each project, compare how long tasks actually took versus what you originally estimated. This quickly exposes patterns—where you consistently under- or overestimate. Over time, this real data makes your future estimates far more accurate than any guesswork.

You’ll quickly see patterns.

Our backend tasks were always 1.5x longer. Now we automatically factor that in.

Keep scope boring and small

Every “small extra feature” adds hidden cost.

Say no more often.

Or move it to phase 2.

Document assumptions clearly

Every estimate is based on certain assumptions—users count, features, integrations, timelines. If these aren’t written down, misunderstandings happen and scope keeps expanding silently. Clear assumptions protect both the team and the client when requirements change later.

If these change, cost changes. Simple.

Don’t optimize pricing — optimize survival

Trying to win projects by being the cheapest usually backfires for small teams. Low pricing leads to tight margins, rushed work, and burnout when anything goes wrong. It’s better to price realistically and stay sustainable than constantly struggle to survive each project.

A slightly higher quote that keeps the team sane is better than a cheap project that burns everyone out.

Underpricing kills more teams than lack of clients.

Treat estimation as a skill

Estimation isn’t something you magically get right — it improves with practice and review. The more projects you track and reflect on, the better your judgment becomes. Treat it like coding or debugging: a skill you deliberately sharpen over time, not a one-time guess.

It improves with practice.

First few projects? You’ll be wrong.

After 10–15? You get surprisingly accurate.