«We are growing, but for now we are closing positions on our own. Maybe we will continue like this?» – A typical situation for a business at the stage of active development.
The need for recruiting is growing, as is the competition for candidates. Let's talk about in-house recruiters and recruiting agencies. But not about which is "better", but about which is more effective in different situations.
Search and process approaches
In-house recruiter:
– works within the company’s internal system;
– understands the culture, team, dynamics well;
– closes several vacancies at the same time;
– often combines recruiting with HR functions: onboarding, team support, performance review;
– closes roles that are already familiar to them, for niche positions it may take more time to immerse yourself in the specifics/market;
– has limited resources for deep sourcing, because it is always “in flux”.
Agency:
– enters the search as a separate team with a focus on results;
– dives deeply into a specific position;
– has more time for direct search, especially of passive candidates;
– works according to a built-in structure: market analytics, sourcing, filtering, communication, support;
– has a base of warm candidates even for complex vacancies and access to closed communities / search resources.
What does this mean?
If you need to build a strategic approach to employer branding, it's in-house.
If you have a specific role [especially when you need it "for yesterday", atypical, rare, C-level, Senior-level] that needs to be closed qualitatively and quickly, this is a task for an agency.
Efficiency
In-house recruiter:
– deep involvement = better understanding of internal expectations;
– strong advantage — communication within the team, quick interaction with hiring managers;
– however, efficiency is often reduced due to multitasking: 5–10 roles at the same time;
– difficult to scale without burnout.
Agency:
– focuses on 1–2 roles at a time, can always attract more recruiters for more closings;
– gives results faster in conditions of “urgent”, “narrow profile”, “relocate”, “new market”;
– keeps the process under control: constant updates, statistics, timelines;
– effective when the internal resource is already at the limit or acceleration is needed.
What does this mean?
In-house — great at keeping up with routine and strategic tasks.
Agency — closes down what is critical or reinforces when in-house doesn't pull volume/pace.
Costs
In-house recruiter:
– fixed monthly costs: salary, bonuses, social package, sick leave, training;
– profitable with a stable flow of vacancies (3–6+ per month);
– longer onboarding of a new recruiter;
– in difficult cases, you still have to connect additional help.
Agency:
– fixed payment [RPO] or % of annual salary;
– no internal management required: the agency manages the search itself;
– cost is predictable and controllable;
– time optimization + speed = reduction of overall recruitment costs.
What does this mean?
In-house is a long-term investment.
An agency is a smart point-of-sale expense when you need a quick result or to strengthen your internal team.
But a combination works best
And it's not about "or - or." It's about "and - and," but in the right roles.
What does in-house do:
– builds the employer brand;
– maintains routine and lively communication internally;
– adapts candidates;
– interacts with the team.
What does the agency do:
– takes on complex, narrow or priority roles;
– relieves the in-house team during times of scaling;
– keeps the pace and process going when resources are scarce;
– reinforces where depth is needed.
Conclusion
There is no right answer to what is “better” to choose. There is only one right question: what is your current task?
If you need to close 2–3 roles every month, build a strong internal team.
If your horizon is:
– launching a new team;
– a complex narrow role;
– rapid growth;
– in-house burnout;
Then it’s time to engage a reliable agency. And the best approach is not to replace, but to combine. An IT Recruitment Agency like EvoTalents fits perfectly into that combined model.
