The Question

“How can two firms look at the same R&D credit and give us quotes that are 3–4x apart? Who’s wrong?”

This is one of the most confusing parts of buying an R&D study.
A CFO shops around and suddenly sees prices from $7,000 on one end and $25,000 on the other — for what seems like the “same” deliverable.

Most buyers assume one of two things:

• the cheap one is cutting corners, or

• the expensive one is overcharging.

The truth: both prices can be perfectly reasonable depending on what you’re actually buying — even if no one explains it clearly.

The Short Answer

The reason R&D tax credit quotes vary so widely is because you’re not buying a single product.
You’re buying a combination of:

1. Methodology

2. Documentation depth

3. Risk tolerance

4. Provider expertise

5. Audit support

6. Time investment from your team

Each of these variables can either shrink or expand the scope dramatically.

Two firms with credible reputations can look at the same company and produce quotes that differ by 3–4x — because the service beneath the surface is not the same.

The Deep Dive

1. Methodology Drives the Cost (and the Risk)

There are three primary R&D credit methodologies in the market:

a) Time estimates (cheapest)
Simple interviews → assign % allocations → calculate credit.
Fast and inexpensive, but highest exposure during audit.

b) Project-based allocation (mid-range)
Tie people → tasks → projects → technical objectives.
Requires more effort but produces stronger support.

c) Contemporaneous, evidence-backed methodology (highest rigor)
Uses sprints, commits, architecture docs, design specs, and project logs.
Most defensible — and most labor-intensive.

Quote comparison:

• $7K firm: likely using lightweight estimate-based methodology

• $25K firm: likely performing deep-dive technical interviews + evidence linking

Both can be “right” depending on your risk profile.

2. Documentation Depth = Price

Documentation is the difference between a good credit and a credit that survives audit.

The cheaper quote usually includes:

• summary-level descriptions

• high-level project narratives

• minimal tie-outs between engineering work and tax rules

• generic job-role percentages

The higher quote typically includes:

• detailed project narratives

• uncertainty + experimentation writeups

• contemporaneous evidence (tickets, commits, sprints)

• payroll + project tie-outs

• a full audit binder

You’re not paying for paper — you’re paying for defensibility.

3. Risk Tolerance (Yours and Theirs)

Some providers price assuming:

• higher credit amounts

• more aggressive interpretations

• less documentation review

Others price assuming:

• conservative positions

• deeper documentation

• more scrutiny

• likelihood of audit defense

A $7K provider may be comfortable stretching time allocations to maximize the credit.
A $25K provider may refuse to stretch even 1% without documentation.

Both can be valid — depending on what the company wants:

• maximum credit

• minimum audit exposure

• somewhere in between

This is where hidden misalignment lives.
Cheaper isn’t always “riskier” — and expensive isn’t automatically “safer.”
It depends on the firm’s internal guardrails.

4. Expertise and Team Structure

The price often reflects the type of people touching the work.

Cheaper quotes often involve:

• junior staff

• offshore teams

• automated tooling

• short interviews

Higher quotes often involve:

• former Big 4 R&D leaders

• engineers performing technical interviews

• specialists with deep industry experience

• senior-level reviewers

In R&D tax, experience doesn’t just change the deliverable — it changes the judgment calls that determine eligibility.

5. Audit Support vs. No Audit Support

This is one of the biggest hidden drivers of price.

• Some firms include unlimited audit defense.

• Some include only partial support.

• Some charge hourly.

• Some explicitly exclude audit work entirely.

A $7K quote that excludes audit support can turn into a $30K audit problem later.
A $25K quote that includes unlimited audit defense might actually be cheaper in the long run.

Most buyers miss this because it’s buried in the proposal.

6. How Much Lift You Want for Your Team

Another invisible variable:
How much time your engineering and finance teams must spend.

Cheaper studies often mean:

• more data gathering required from you

• more follow-ups

• more clarification requests

• more manual effort

Higher-priced studies typically mean:

• provider handles extraction

• deep technical interviews upfront

• documentation is proactively curated

• minimal lift from CTO and engineers

Both are valid — it’s a trade-off between money and time.

So Which Price Is “Right”?

The right price is the one aligned with:

• your risk tolerance

• your documentation maturity

• your internal bandwidth

• your R&D complexity

• your audit exposure

• your desire for long-term consistency

There is no universal price that fits all companies.
There are only different scopes hidden beneath the surface.

A Simple Framework to Compare Quotes

When evaluating two wildly different proposals, ask:

1. What methodology will you use?

• Estimate-based?

• Project-based?

• Evidence-backed?

2. What documentation will I receive?

• A calculation?

• A summary report?

• A full audit-ready package?

3. Who will interview my engineers?

• Junior staff?

• Offshore teams?

• Former Big 4 specialists?

4. What is included in audit defense?

• Everything?

• Something?

• Nothing?

5. How much time is required from my team?

• 1–2 hours total?

• Several interviews?

• Weekly involvement?

Set these side-by-side and the price difference becomes obvious.

The Takeaway

A $7,000 R&D study and a $25,000 R&D study are not the same product.
They’re reflections of:

• methodology,

• rigor,

• documentation depth,

• expertise,

• risk posture,

• and long-term support.

Both prices can be reasonable depending on what the company needs.

The goal isn’t to pick the cheapest or the most expensive — it’s to pick the one that’s aligned with your risk, your complexity, and your definition of “getting it right.”