Next.js and React development is right when the interface is the product: dashboards, configurators, logged-in experiences, and sites where the front end has to do real work. It is the wrong answer for a brochure site, and Gatilab will tell you that before you spend on it, because headless roughly doubles what you have to maintain.
Delivery is remote, with calls in IST. You keep the code, the accounts, and every login in your own name.
Three failures account for most of what we get asked to rescue. All 3 are scoping problems wearing technical costumes.
Plenty of headless builds exist because the team wanted to work in React, not because the front end needed it. The cost lands 18 months later, on whoever inherits 2 codebases and 2 deploy pipelines instead of one.
Decoupling the front end often means editors stop being able to see what they are publishing. That is fixable with draft preview and a proper editing route, but only if somebody scoped it rather than assuming it.
Static, server-rendered, and client-rendered are 3 different products with 3 different cost profiles. Picking per route, deliberately, is the difference between a fast site and a large bill for a slow one.
Six pieces of work, each scoped on its own. Most engagements start with one and add the others once the first has paid for itself.
Logged-in experiences where state, permissions, and data density are the hard part, and the design system has to survive 40 screens rather than 4.
WordPress kept as the editing experience your team already knows, with a Next.js front end in front of it. Draft preview included, because editors will not accept less.
Per-route decisions on static, server, and client rendering, with a performance budget agreed before the first component rather than measured after launch.
A component set with locked styling that marketing and product both build from, so new screens stop being bespoke work every time.
The data contract designed alongside the interface, with sensible caching, error states, and loading behaviour rather than spinners everywhere.
Preview deployments per branch, environment separation, and enough logging and error tracking to know what broke before a customer tells you.
Prices are in rupees and exclude tax. The scoping sprint is a fixed fee and comes off the build price if you go ahead.
For teams who need a real number and a written plan before committing to a build.
The fee comes off the build price if you go ahead with us.
For a defined front end, built on staging with preview deployments your team reviews.
If the work does not warrant a build, we quote the smaller fix instead.
For product teams who need ongoing front-end capacity.
Month to month. A contract you cannot leave is a hostage situation.
Development and consulting are delivered remotely, so location changes meeting times and payment method rather than price. Hosting is never resold.
Chosen because they stay maintainable for whoever comes after us, not because they are new. If your team already runs something else and it works, we work in it.
Overruns come from work nobody scoped. Every stage produces an artifact you check before the next one starts.
We read what already exists before quoting. Most of the risk in this kind of work is invisible from the outside, so pricing it without looking is a guess dressed as a number.
You leave with: a written scope with the assumptions and risks named
Work happens on an environment your team can reach, reviewed weekly. You see it grow rather than getting a reveal at the end and a week to react.
You leave with: a staging URL you can click through as it grows
Error handling, logging, and rollback are built with the feature, not after it. The question is never whether something fails, it is whether you find out before your customers do.
You leave with: monitoring, alerting, and a rollback path that has been tested
Documentation your next hire can read, every account in your name, and a dependency list short enough to maintain.
You leave with: documentation, credentials, and no lock-in
Vague quotes do the most damage in exactly this kind of work. Half of this list is reasons we say no.
Scope, cost, ownership, and the cases where we are the wrong choice.
For most marketing sites, WordPress with proper engineering is enough and costs less to run. Next.js earns its place when the interface is the product, when several channels consume the same data, or when the front end needs real application behaviour. If it is being chosen for the resume, we will say so.
Yes, and that is usually the point of a headless build here. WordPress stays as the editing experience, the Next.js front end consumes it, and draft preview is wired in so editors can see unpublished work rather than publishing blind.
Vercel for most Next.js work, Railway where the project needs long-running processes or its own database alongside the app. Both accounts are yours. We do not resell hosting, so leaving us never means migrating.
It is a rendering decision, not a framework limitation. Server-rendered or statically generated routes index fine. Client-only rendering for content you want ranked is the mistake, and it is one we design out at the start.
Send the current situation, what you have already tried, and the outcome you need. The more specific you are, the more specific the reply.
Prefer to talk first? Message us on WhatsApp. Budgets under ₹27,000 are better served elsewhere and we will say so rather than take the project.
