![\"Hand](\"https:\/\/nextage.com.br\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/Como-avaliar-empresas-de-desenvolvimento-de-software-agil-no-Brasil-1.avif\")
<\/p>\nTo evaluate an agile software development company in Brazil, verify eight objective criteria: proven delivery cadence, engineering metrics, named squad composition, quality process, scope change management, transparency of progress, team continuity and contractual clauses. The difference between a genuinely agile vendor and one that simply uses agile vocabulary lies in the ability to evidence each of these points before signing, not in general statements about methodology.<\/p>\n
A criterion that cannot be verified is not a criterion; it is an adjective. This guide gives you, for each point, the question to ask in the meeting, the answer that signals maturity, the red flag and the evidence to request.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
An agile software development company is one that organises delivery into short, dated cycles with client validation at the end of each cycle, rather than concentrating delivery into a single milestone at the end of the project. In practice, four characteristics define it:<\/p>\n
Note what does not appear in that definition: any specific framework. Scrum, Kanban and XP are means. Agility is a property of the delivery process, verifiable in artefacts and dates; it is not a choice of commercial vocabulary.<\/p>\n
Because supply has grown faster than the ability to compare. Brazil closed 2025 with 41,613 companies operating in software and services, according to the study Brazilian Software Market: Overview and Trends 2026, produced by ABES in partnership with IDC<\/a>. The IT leader’s problem is not a shortage of options: it is an abundance of vendors describing themselves with identical language.<\/p>\n The investment context has shifted as well. Brazil’s IT market reached US$ 67.8 billion in 2025, up 18.5% year on year, but the projection for 2026 is 5.3%, below the estimated global average of 9.7%. The sector has entered a phase driven by efficiency, governance and measurable return. Translated to the decision table: every technology contract now requires justification, and “we trust the vendor” has stopped being one.<\/p>\n Add to that the most uncomfortable data point of the moment. In the 18th State of Agile Report, published by Digital.ai<\/a>, 63% of respondents said they struggle to deliver reliable, high-quality software, a 12 percentage point increase in a single year; 76% reported growing pressure to prove the return on agile investment. It is worth noting that this edition’s sample is modest (around 350 respondents, mostly from large organisations), which makes it a directional signal rather than a statistical portrait of the market. The signal is clear nonetheless: nearly every vendor calls itself agile; few can prove it.<\/p>\n Assess how often the vendor puts working software in the client’s hands.<\/p>\n What to ask:<\/strong> “What was the actual delivery frequency to production on your last project of a size comparable to mine?”<\/p>\n Answer that signals maturity:<\/strong> a number and a frequency (“releases at the end of every two-week sprint, with a demo and recorded acceptance”).<\/p>\n Red flag:<\/strong> naming the framework without naming the cadence, or describing delivery concentrated in the final months of the schedule.<\/p>\n How to verify:<\/strong> ask for the release history of the previous project, the sprint calendar and a sprint review record (the vendor can anonymise the client).<\/p>\n This is where those who measure outcomes separate from those who measure effort.<\/p>\n What to ask:<\/strong> “Which metrics do you report to the client? Do you track the four DORA metrics?”<\/p>\n Answer that signals maturity:<\/strong> reference to change lead time, deployment frequency, change failure rate and time to restore service, with an indication of where that data is recorded.<\/p>\n Red flag:<\/strong> the report consists of hours worked, story points completed or percentage of schedule elapsed. That describes activity, not delivery.<\/p>\n How to verify:<\/strong> request a real monthly report from another client, with data anonymised.<\/p>\n This criterion gained weight when AI entered the development cycle. The State of AI-assisted Software Development 2025 report, from DORA and Google Cloud<\/a>, built on responses from roughly 5,000 technology professionals, reached a direct conclusion: AI acts as an amplifier. It improves organisations that already have a mature process and aggravates the dysfunction of those that do not. The study also observes that speed gains tend to come with increased instability when engineering discipline is absent. Without metrics, the client cannot tell one case from the other; they simply perceive that the team is “moving fast”, right up until the first production incident.<\/p>\n The classic risk in IT contracting: the team presented in the commercial proposal is not the team that shows up at kick-off.<\/p>\n What to ask:<\/strong> “Who are the people assigned, at what seniority level, and with what percentage of dedication to my project?”<\/p>\n Answer that signals maturity:<\/strong> a named composition, percentage of dedication per person, and openness to a technical interview with the tech lead before signing.<\/p>\n Red flag:<\/strong> generic profiles (“two mid-level developers and a QA”), refusal to present the team, or undeclared partial allocation.<\/p>\n How to verify:<\/strong> interview the tech lead before signing, and require the agreed composition to appear in the contract, with a clear rule for substitutions.<\/p>\n Is quality a continuous process or the final phase of the schedule? The answer determines how much rework your internal team will absorb.<\/p>\n What to ask:<\/strong> “How is code reviewed before it reaches production, and what test coverage do you maintain?”<\/p>\n Answer that signals maturity:<\/strong> mandatory code review, automated testing, written acceptance criteria, QA embedded in the squad, and a defined policy for AI use with mandatory human review.<\/p>\n Red flag:<\/strong> QA engaged only at the end, developers testing their own code without peer review, or AI use with no formal policy.<\/p>\n How to verify:<\/strong> ask for the team’s Definition of Done and their internal policy on the use of artificial intelligence in development.<\/p>\n That last point has become a quick maturity filter. The State of Agile 2025 recorded AI adoption among agile teams jumping from 68% to 84% in a single year, while only 49% reported having governance guardrails in place. The question “do you use AI?” no longer differentiates anyone. The question that does is “how do you govern your use of AI?”.<\/p>\n At NextAge, AI-assisted code review runs throughout development, with human review before code moves into the pipeline. It is the practical application of what DORA describes: AI accelerating a process that already exists, rather than replacing it.<\/p>\n Scope always changes. What distinguishes vendors is the process that handles the change.<\/p>\n What to ask:<\/strong> “How does a new priority enter the backlog, and who decides what comes out to make room for it?”<\/p>\n Answer that signals maturity:<\/strong> a described reprioritisation process, a defined Product Owner role (on the client or vendor side), and an estimate of schedule and cost impact before the decision is made.<\/p>\n Red flag:<\/strong> two equally problematic extremes. Every change becomes a contract amendment, which stalls the product; or the vendor “fits it in” without declaring impact, which means someone is absorbing the cost silently (usually in quality, sometimes in schedule).<\/p>\n How to verify:<\/strong> read the contractual change management clause and ask for a real example of reprioritisation on another project.<\/p>\n Transparency is measured by what the client can access independently.<\/p>\n What to ask:<\/strong> “What can I see about project progress without depending on a status meeting?”<\/p>\n Answer that signals maturity:<\/strong> read access to the management board and repository, plus periodic reports covering progress, quality and risks.<\/p>\n Red flag:<\/strong> visibility available only through a monthly presentation prepared by the vendor. Information filtered by the party being evaluated tends to arrive later than needed.<\/p>\n How to verify:<\/strong> negotiate read access to the management environment from day one of the contract, not from the first problem onward.<\/p>\n This is the most underestimated risk in development contracts, and the most predictable.<\/p>\n What to ask:<\/strong> “What is the average turnover on your squads, and what does the contract provide for if a professional leaves?”<\/p>\n Answer that signals maturity:<\/strong> a defined replacement window in the contract, an overlap period for knowledge transfer, and technical documentation maintained throughout the project.<\/p>\n Red flag:<\/strong> the vendor cannot state its own turnover rate; documentation is promised “for the end”; critical knowledge sits with a single person.<\/p>\n How to verify:<\/strong> ask for the replacement clause and a sample of technical documentation produced on another project.<\/p>\n The Brazilian context makes this criterion non-negotiable. According to Brasscom’s ICT Labour Market Outlook report, there is a 30.2% gap between demand for technology professionals and available graduates<\/a>: between 2019 and 2024 the sector demanded roughly 665,000 professionals, while just over 464,000 graduated in the corresponding prior period. In a market with that level of scarcity, turnover is not an exception; it is an operating condition. That is why guaranteed replacement is one of the clauses NextAge standardises in its software projects<\/a>: if something changes in the squad, it becomes the vendor’s problem, not the client’s schedule.<\/p>\n What counts is what is written, not what was said on the call.<\/p>\n What to ask:<\/strong> “Is there an SLA in the contract? What happens if it is not met? And who owns the source code?”<\/p>\n Answer that signals maturity:<\/strong> an SLA with a defined indicator, measurement method and consequence; full intellectual property for the client; repository under client control; specific treatment of data protection, confidentiality and security practices.<\/p>\n Red flag:<\/strong> an SLA written as a statement of intent, without metric or consequence; code hosted exclusively on vendor infrastructure; security addressed as “in line with market best practices”.<\/p>\n How to verify:<\/strong> send the draft to legal before commercial acceptance, not after.<\/p>\n A contractual SLA monitored sprint by sprint, with deviations identified before they become delays, is how NextAge structures projects with defined scope and deadlines. The principle is straightforward: the client keeps control of management; the vendor answers for technical standard and delivery predictability.<\/p>\n The decision rule fits in one sentence: the right model is determined by scope stability and internal management capacity, not by the value of the proposal.<\/p>\n Cost varies according to five main variables: average team seniority, squad size and composition, whether the tech lead is fully or partially dedicated, integration complexity, and the contracting model. There is no single price list; there are ranges, and there is composition.<\/p>\n The point that most often distorts proposal comparison is this: two proposals with the same monthly value can have entirely different compositions. A squad marketed as senior may contain two mid-level developers and one junior in training. Comparing price without comparing named composition is comparing nothing.<\/p>\n Five signals appear consistently, and all of them are detectable in a single meeting:<\/p>\n One isolated signal may have an explanation. Three or more indicate that the agility lives in the sales material, not in the delivery process.<\/p>\n Compare total cost, not salary. An in-house hire adds payroll charges, benefits, equipment, licences and the cost of the recruitment process, which for competitive technical roles typically takes two to four months. The relevant calculation also includes the opportunity cost of the project sitting idle during that period. The strongest argument is not direct savings: it is predictable capacity and speed to start.<\/p>\n Define the boundary of responsibility by product or module, not by task. Mixed squads work when there is a single prioritised backlog and one Definition of Done applying to everyone. The pattern that fails most often is the opposite: two teams, two processes, two cadences and a weekly meeting attempting to reconcile them.<\/p>\n Establish three milestones in the contract itself: a usable delivery within the first or second sprint, a first metrics report within 30 days, and a formal review at 90 days with written continuity criteria. A mature vendor accepts being measured early; resistance to short milestones is usually information enough.<\/p>\n The risk arises when the relationship starts to resemble direct subordination and habitual work, with the client managing people rather than managing deliverables. Reduce it by keeping people management with the vendor (performance, leave, working hours, substitutions), contracting by deliverable or by capacity, and formalising that in the contract. This point warrants review by legal counsel in light of your sector and operating model.<\/p>\n The client typically acts as controller and the vendor as processor, which requires a specific data processing clause, recorded purposes and defined responsibilities in the event of an incident. On the technical side, require a development environment with masked or synthetic data, restricted and logged production access, and a termination policy with verified data deletion. In Brazil this falls under the LGPD, whose structure closely mirrors the GDPR.<\/p>\n Request the same four items from all of them: named composition with percentage of dedication, planned delivery cadence, the set of metrics that will be reported, and a draft contract with the SLA. Proposals that look equivalent on the cover tend to diverge considerably on those four points, and that is where the real cost surfaces.<\/p>\n Yes, provided traceability is treated as an engineering requirement. That means version control with an auditable history, recorded acceptance criteria, formal approvals per delivery, and documentation generated as work progresses. The common mistake is not adopting agile in a regulated environment: it is adopting it without anticipating the evidence the auditor will request.<\/p>\n Address the exit at the start. Define in the contract what constitutes minimum documentation (architecture, technical decisions, dependencies, operations runbook), how often it is updated, and an overlap period for handover. Documentation promised for the closing phase tends to arrive incomplete, because it is produced under pressure and without context of use.<\/p>\n It is worth comparing cost per unit of value delivered, not monthly value. A cheaper proposal with a less senior squad typically generates more rework, more correction cycles and more of your internal team’s time spent reviewing. That time rarely appears in the comparison spreadsheet, but it appears in full in the schedule.<\/p>\n Track three indicators together: predictability (what was committed in the sprint was delivered), stability (change failure rate and time to restore service), and rework (volume of correction against recent deliveries). Speed in isolation is misleading: it is entirely possible to accelerate delivery while accumulating technical debt that surfaces months later.<\/p>\nWhat are the 8 objective criteria for evaluating an agile development company?<\/h2>\n
1. How do you verify that the vendor delivers at a real cadence?<\/h3>\n
2. Which engineering metrics should the vendor report?<\/h3>\n
3. How do you know who will actually work on your project?<\/h3>\n
4. How does the vendor ensure code quality (and where does AI fit in)?<\/h3>\n
5. What happens when scope changes mid-project?<\/h3>\n
![\"Code](\"https:\/\/nextage.com.br\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/Como-identificar-uma-empresa-que-e-agil-apenas-no-discurso-1.avif\")
<\/p>\n6. How much of the project can you see without requesting a status meeting?<\/h3>\n
7. What happens if a key professional leaves the team?<\/h3>\n
8. What needs to be in the contract?<\/h3>\n
Fixed scope, dedicated squad or Time & Materials: which model to choose?<\/h2>\n
\n\n\n
\n \nModel<\/th>\n Best for<\/th>\n Where the risk sits<\/th>\n Avoid when<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n \n Fixed scope<\/td>\n Projects with stable requirements and a defined deadline<\/td>\n Mostly with the vendor<\/td>\n The product is still being discovered<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Dedicated squad<\/td>\n Continuous product evolution, roadmap of 12 months or more<\/td>\n Shared, with predictable capacity<\/td>\n Demand is one-off and short<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Time & Materials<\/td>\n Medium to high complexity with evolving scope<\/td>\n Mostly with the client<\/td>\n There is no internal capacity to prioritise the backlog<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n How much does it cost to hire an agile development company in Brazil?<\/h2>\n
How do you spot a company that is agile in name only?<\/h2>\n
\n
![\"Four](\"https:\/\/nextage.com.br\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/O-que-acontece-quando-o-escopo-muda-no-meio-do-projeto-1.avif\")
<\/p>\nWhat is the final checklist before signing?<\/h2>\n
\n
Frequently asked questions from IT leaders<\/h2>\n
How do I justify hiring a vendor instead of expanding the internal team?<\/strong><\/h3>\n
How do I integrate an external squad with my internal team without friction?<\/strong><\/h3>\n
How do I evaluate the vendor in the first 90 days, before committing the full roadmap?<\/strong><\/h3>\n
Does hiring an outsourced squad create employment relationship risk?<\/strong><\/h3>\n
How does data protection work when the vendor needs access to real data?<\/strong><\/h3>\n
What should I ask for to compare three proposals that look equivalent?<\/strong><\/h3>\n
Does agile work in a regulated or audited environment?<\/strong><\/h3>\n
How do I ensure knowledge transfer at the end of the contract?<\/strong><\/h3>\n
Is it worth choosing the cheapest vendor?<\/strong><\/h3>\n
How do I measure whether the partnership is working over time?<\/strong><\/h3>\n