The cost of custom coding your integration layer

The true TCO of custom coding integrations vs iPaaS

The build vs. buy debate often starts with an underestimation of complexity. A developer might estimate that connecting an ERP to a webshop will take two weeks. On the happy path—perfect data and no failures—that estimate might even be accurate.

But production environments are rarely perfect. The initial code is just the tip of the iceberg. Beneath it sits the operational capability you need to avoid data loss, duplicates, and outages:

• Error handling and logging: capturing failures with enough context to troubleshoot quickly.
• Retries and idempotency: retry safely without creating duplicates or corrupting state.
• Queueing and buffering: absorbing spikes, handling downtime, and recovering without losing messages.
• Security and access control: OAuth/token rotation, secrets management, encryption, auditability.
• Data transformation and validation: mapping schemas, normalizing formats, handling edge cases.

An iPaaS provides these capabilities out of the box. Building them yourself is possible—but time-consuming, costly, and ongoing. When you choose to build, you’re not just writing code; you’re building a proprietary middleware layer you must support indefinitely.

How technical debt compounds in custom integrations

Every line of integration code you write is code you have to maintain. Over time, this creates compounding technical debt—especially once the integration becomes business-critical.

1) The maintenance trap

APIs change. Vendors deprecate endpoints, alter payloads, and update authentication. When they do, your integration breaks and your team drops planned work to fix it. That reactive cycle is unpredictable and expensive.

2) Dependency on specific knowledge

Custom integrations are often owned by one developer or a small team. When those people leave, the integration becomes difficult to change safely—because the “why” behind edge-case logic isn’t documented, testable, or visible.

3) Scaling bottlenecks

A script can handle low volume. Peak periods expose the missing operational patterns: buffering, parallel processing, throttling, safe replays, and monitoring. Scaling then turns into infrastructure work that steals time from core product goals.

Standardizing integration instead of rebuilding it repeatedly

To reduce TCO, the goal isn’t “less integration.” It’s standardized integration—so reliability patterns are consistent and reusable across systems and teams.

An iPaaS like Alumio provides a central integration layer designed to handle operational concerns that custom code typically reimplements again and again: connectivity management, observability, transformation logic, and scalable flow execution.

What changes when you stop building your own middleware

Custom integrations usually fail in the same places—not because the initial build was bad, but because the integration becomes part of daily operations.

With a standardized integration layer:

• Incidents take less time to diagnose because payloads, errors, and flow steps are traceable in one place
• Changes require less rework because mappings and routing are centralized instead of scattered across codebases
• Volume spikes are less disruptive because buffering, retries, and throughput controls are treated as operating patterns, not last-minute patches

This isn’t about removing engineering from the picture. It’s about reducing engineering time spent on non-differentiating integration upkeep.

Building 1–2 integrations in-house vs using an iPaaS

It’s fair to question whether an iPaaS is necessary if the plan is to build only one or two integrations. In some cases, custom code can be the right decision—especially when the work is genuinely contained and the operational risk is low.

Custom code is usually viable when:

• The integration is non-critical and occasional delays won’t disrupt operations
• Volumes are low and predictable, with no major peaks or seasonal spikes
• The API surface is stable, with limited change and low dependency risk
• Manual recovery is acceptable, without creating backlogs or customer impact

Where this often changes is not in the integration count, but in the expectations around it. Even a small integration footprint tends to pick up additional requirements over time, such as:

• Stack expansion: adding systems like PIM, WMS, CDP, marketing automation, or BI
• Workflow growth: returns, refunds, shipments, customer updates, inventory rules
• Operational expectations: auditability, traceability, and more real-time synchronization
• Scale pressure: higher processing needs during promotions, seasonality, or channel growth

This is typically where long-term TCO appears—not in building “one integration,” but in maintaining reliability and adapting to change as operational demands inevitably increase.

Turning integration work into reusable engineering

TCO becomes visible when integrations move from “built” to “operated.” Standardizing the integration layer reduces the recurring costs that quietly drain delivery capacity, while also changing how developers spend their time.

Practical impact of an iPaaS on cost and delivery

• Fewer unplanned interruptions: incidents are easier to diagnose and resolve when failures, payloads, and flow steps are traceable in one place, reducing surprise troubleshooting.
• Less time spent on glue work: instead of rebuilding auth flows, handling API changes, hardening scripts, and maintaining pipelines, teams rely on reusable patterns and centralized control.
• Faster onboarding and handover: integration logic is visible and reviewable, reducing reliance on tribal knowledge and making changes safer to implement.
• Less integration sprawl over time: consistent patterns discourage the “just add another script” habit that slowly becomes a fragile ecosystem.

What this changes for developers day-to-day

• Configuration over coding: pre-built connectors allow developers to set up connections without rewriting handshake logic and boilerplate for every system.
• Transparent data transformation: mapping and transformation logic can be managed in a structured way rather than buried inside custom scripts.
• Standardized monitoring: instead of digging through server logs to find why data failed, teams use centralized monitoring and error reporting to shorten incident cycles.

The outcome is straightforward: less engineering capacity spent maintaining integrations, and more capacity available for product and platform work that actually differentiates.

The real cost isn’t building integrations - it’s owning them

Most custom integration projects don’t fail at launch. They fail slowly—through maintenance overhead, growing operational complexity, and the steady diversion of engineering capacity into support work. That’s the real TCO: not the sprint where the integration is built, but the years spent keeping it reliable as systems, volumes, and requirements change.

An iPaaS is an obvious fit when you’re connecting many systems, automating more workflows, or running high-volume, real-time synchronization. The less obvious point is that it’s still crucial when you “only” build one or two integrations—because those integrations still need production-grade guarantees. They still require safe retries, monitoring, traceability, and controlled change as APIs and business rules evolve.

Using Alumio means centralizing those concerns in a single integration layer—so connectivity, mapping/transformation, logging, and operational control are standardized from day one. The practical outcome is simpler: fewer fragile scripts to maintain, clearer visibility across data flows, and more engineering capacity available for work that actually differentiates.

‍