How to Choose a Nearshore Software Development Company?
Published on
·
April 10, 2026
Last updated on
·
April 10, 2026
Time to read
·
12
Valentina Ibinete
Marketing Lead
There’s plenty of material telling you about the benefits of outsourcing software development services to nearshore companies. The upsides are similar time zone, cultural affinity, a high-quality talent pool, and cost reductions. Even though these things are true, that’s just a general idea of what nearshore outsourcing is all about.
You might be already interested in it, but given how many software development teams are out there, how do you know which one you should partner with?
Read on as we point out what factors are most important to consider when choosing your next nearshore software partner.
A bargain might compromise your business
If you’re considering nearshoring just to save as much money as possible, then you’re missing the point. In fact, just considering the cheapest option could lead to bad experiences.
Magne Jørgensen, researcher and professor at the University of Oslo, showed in a research paper that software providers with bids 25% lower than the average correlate to a 9% increase in the frequency of project failure for the same skill level, suggesting that an excessive emphasis on low prices makes it more likely that projects fail.
Software development is no simple task. It takes hard work, knowledge, skill, and most importantly time, to end up with a scalable, testable, and user-friendly software product ready to run.
Promises of exceptionally quick work at the lowest price should be viewed with healthy skepticism. You might know of folks in your community who have already gone through bad situations when their cheap outsourced software turned sour, like Boeing's offshore outsource fiasco.
Don’t get discouraged though!
Finding quality nearshore software development companies while not breaking the bank is still possible because of the exchange rate, salary differences, and great talent pool. You just need to take your time and correctly assess your potential partners before making a decision, which leads me to my next point.
Agile methodology is key to success
Avoid injecting money into a black box, only to open it months or years later and find something completely different than what you were expecting. Partnering with software companies with a strong agile approach is a great way to prevent this.
The Forbes Technology Council agrees that an agile software development process translates into quality project management: faster feedback cycles, effective problem identification, disrupting changes prevention, flexible prioritization, maintaining high customer satisfaction, identifying benefits sooner, free commitment and continuous improvement.
Software development does better in an ongoing back-and-forth process, where you describe your desired result to your IT partner, evaluate the intermediate results, both parties provide feedback and exchange opinions, and iterate the process until convergence is finally achieved.
And how do I identify a software company with a strong agile culture you ask? You should evaluate how they behave. Shy away from those trying to sell you pre-established solutions, and stick to those who are honestly trying to understand what your needs are and how your business model works.
A good agile team will not only come to the Scrum Ceremonies with regular updates, but they will dive deep into your ideas and actively look to suggest recommendations and improvements to your product.
Every project is unique, and will require the most focused, responsible, and committed development team to bring your ideas down to earth and successfully deliver. Checking references is a good starting point.
The importance of user experience (UX)
Nowadays our brains are being bombarded with information and stimulus coming from everywhere, specifically from our computers and cell phones, constantly distracting us with our social media feed, news updates, work info, and more.
Therefore, customers aren’t only needing, but are demanding, simple and easy-to-use UX/UI that lets them quickly understand and make use of your services, giving a necessary rest to their busy heads meanwhile.
To get an idea of how important this is, take for instance a research study by Baymard where they tracked the global average e-commerce cart abandonment rate for 9 years, concluding it was around 69%. The main reasons were UX/UI flaws at the design and check-out flow that frustrated or made it hard for users to buy.
If this wasn’t enough to make a point, suffice to say that after a no-ROI period, Walmart decided to redesign its website in 2018, paying special attention to UX/UI. The results: Walmart’s e-commerce sales grew by 43%.
The important question here is whether your software consultant can turn all those lines of code into something accessible and easy for your customers to use and love.
When searching for your next nearshore software development agency, take a look at their case studies. See if their previous projects not only do what they say but also look professional, simple, and smooth.
Don’t forget that even if you have the most solid software engine running, it's worthless if users find it counterintuitive.
Go for flexibility
Today's world moves fast. To survive, you must have the ability to quickly adapt to new situations.
What worked for you in the past might not be useful now. Committing to long-term relationships with a partner through hard-binding legal contracts might not be your best bet.
Outstanding nearshore digital transformation agencies know and embrace this. Moreover, they will offer flexible working frameworks where you can easily ramp up and down without any bureaucracy.
They will freely let you decide if you want to stay or leave because they’re committed to consistently providing you with the best service. That way you’ll want to keep choosing them as your software development partner because you continue to see ROI in the relationship. That’s the kind of value-based relationship you’re looking for!
Look for stable countries
So far we’ve talked about software companies and business, but given that nearshoring is the central topic of this post, we can’t avoid talking about countries.
Their strengths and weaknesses vary a lot from region to region, making it difficult to establish generalities. However, there are some key factors you should keep in mind when researching countries: political, economic, and judicial stability.
Usually, nearshore countries fall into the category of “developing countries”, which makes them interesting because of lower costs, but many often suffer from social upheavals, economic crises, and mismanaged governments.
Any of these issues can put your investment or business at risk because they could lead to exchange rate restrictions, massive layoffs, authoritarian governments, or expropriations.
When looking at which country to choose, consider Uruguay. This South American country is recognized worldwide for its enduring democratic institutions and solid rule of lay, high human development index, stable and open economy, excellent English level, the fastest internet connection in the region and massive tech education investment.
Summary
Key things to keep in mind when choosing which nearshore digital transformation agency to partner with:
Take advantage of natural nearshore lower costs and aim for quality providers rather than blindly going for the cheapest option available
Get close to development teams genuinely trying to understand what you need, instead of imposing their solutions. Value honest and involved development teams who aren’t afraid of telling what they think
Give special consideration to software companies with UX/UI expertise. You want your users to experience software that runs as good as it looks
Stick to firms that let you freely come and go within flexible working frameworks. They’ll sustain value-based relationships, providing ROI to you
Look for the most stable countries to invest in. Stay updated on news about political instability, economic crises, or social upheavals. This way you’ll avoid future pitfalls.
There’s plenty of material telling you about the benefits of outsourcing software development services to nearshore companies. The upsides are similar time zone, cultural affinity, a high-quality talent pool, and cost reductions. Even though these things are true, that’s just a general idea of what nearshore outsourcing is all about.
You might be already interested in it, but given how many software development teams are out there, how do you know which one you should partner with?
Read on as we point out what factors are most important to consider when choosing your next nearshore software partner.
A bargain might compromise your business
If you’re considering nearshoring just to save as much money as possible, then you’re missing the point. In fact, just considering the cheapest option could lead to bad experiences.
Magne Jørgensen, researcher and professor at the University of Oslo, showed in a research paper that software providers with bids 25% lower than the average correlate to a 9% increase in the frequency of project failure for the same skill level, suggesting that an excessive emphasis on low prices makes it more likely that projects fail.
Software development is no simple task. It takes hard work, knowledge, skill, and most importantly time, to end up with a scalable, testable, and user-friendly software product ready to run.
Promises of exceptionally quick work at the lowest price should be viewed with healthy skepticism. You might know of folks in your community who have already gone through bad situations when their cheap outsourced software turned sour, like Boeing's offshore outsource fiasco.
Don’t get discouraged though!
Finding quality nearshore software development companies while not breaking the bank is still possible because of the exchange rate, salary differences, and great talent pool. You just need to take your time and correctly assess your potential partners before making a decision, which leads me to my next point.
Agile methodology is key to success
Avoid injecting money into a black box, only to open it months or years later and find something completely different than what you were expecting. Partnering with software companies with a strong agile approach is a great way to prevent this.
The Forbes Technology Council agrees that an agile software development process translates into quality project management: faster feedback cycles, effective problem identification, disrupting changes prevention, flexible prioritization, maintaining high customer satisfaction, identifying benefits sooner, free commitment and continuous improvement.
Software development does better in an ongoing back-and-forth process, where you describe your desired result to your IT partner, evaluate the intermediate results, both parties provide feedback and exchange opinions, and iterate the process until convergence is finally achieved.
And how do I identify a software company with a strong agile culture you ask? You should evaluate how they behave. Shy away from those trying to sell you pre-established solutions, and stick to those who are honestly trying to understand what your needs are and how your business model works.
A good agile team will not only come to the Scrum Ceremonies with regular updates, but they will dive deep into your ideas and actively look to suggest recommendations and improvements to your product.
Every project is unique, and will require the most focused, responsible, and committed development team to bring your ideas down to earth and successfully deliver. Checking references is a good starting point.
The importance of user experience (UX)
Nowadays our brains are being bombarded with information and stimulus coming from everywhere, specifically from our computers and cell phones, constantly distracting us with our social media feed, news updates, work info, and more.
Therefore, customers aren’t only needing, but are demanding, simple and easy-to-use UX/UI that lets them quickly understand and make use of your services, giving a necessary rest to their busy heads meanwhile.
To get an idea of how important this is, take for instance a research study by Baymard where they tracked the global average e-commerce cart abandonment rate for 9 years, concluding it was around 69%. The main reasons were UX/UI flaws at the design and check-out flow that frustrated or made it hard for users to buy.
If this wasn’t enough to make a point, suffice to say that after a no-ROI period, Walmart decided to redesign its website in 2018, paying special attention to UX/UI. The results: Walmart’s e-commerce sales grew by 43%.
The important question here is whether your software consultant can turn all those lines of code into something accessible and easy for your customers to use and love.
When searching for your next nearshore software development agency, take a look at their case studies. See if their previous projects not only do what they say but also look professional, simple, and smooth.
Don’t forget that even if you have the most solid software engine running, it's worthless if users find it counterintuitive.
Go for flexibility
Today's world moves fast. To survive, you must have the ability to quickly adapt to new situations.
What worked for you in the past might not be useful now. Committing to long-term relationships with a partner through hard-binding legal contracts might not be your best bet.
Outstanding nearshore digital transformation agencies know and embrace this. Moreover, they will offer flexible working frameworks where you can easily ramp up and down without any bureaucracy.
They will freely let you decide if you want to stay or leave because they’re committed to consistently providing you with the best service. That way you’ll want to keep choosing them as your software development partner because you continue to see ROI in the relationship. That’s the kind of value-based relationship you’re looking for!
Look for stable countries
So far we’ve talked about software companies and business, but given that nearshoring is the central topic of this post, we can’t avoid talking about countries.
Their strengths and weaknesses vary a lot from region to region, making it difficult to establish generalities. However, there are some key factors you should keep in mind when researching countries: political, economic, and judicial stability.
Usually, nearshore countries fall into the category of “developing countries”, which makes them interesting because of lower costs, but many often suffer from social upheavals, economic crises, and mismanaged governments.
Any of these issues can put your investment or business at risk because they could lead to exchange rate restrictions, massive layoffs, authoritarian governments, or expropriations.
When looking at which country to choose, consider Uruguay. This South American country is recognized worldwide for its enduring democratic institutions and solid rule of lay, high human development index, stable and open economy, excellent English level, the fastest internet connection in the region and massive tech education investment.
Summary
Key things to keep in mind when choosing which nearshore digital transformation agency to partner with:
Take advantage of natural nearshore lower costs and aim for quality providers rather than blindly going for the cheapest option available
Get close to development teams genuinely trying to understand what you need, instead of imposing their solutions. Value honest and involved development teams who aren’t afraid of telling what they think
Give special consideration to software companies with UX/UI expertise. You want your users to experience software that runs as good as it looks
Stick to firms that let you freely come and go within flexible working frameworks. They’ll sustain value-based relationships, providing ROI to you
Look for the most stable countries to invest in. Stay updated on news about political instability, economic crises, or social upheavals. This way you’ll avoid future pitfalls.
A while ago we noticed something pretty common: everyone wanted to share more knowledge internally, but nobody wanted another heavy corporate ritual.
Internal talks usually start with good intentions and slowly disappear. They take time, preparation, and energy. And at some point people start feeling like they need to be experts before presenting anything.
So we tried the opposite.
15 minute talks.
Small topics.
Low pressure.
And one important rule: every session had to leave something useful behind. A tool, a workflow, an idea, a shortcut, a new way to approach a problem. Something people could actually use after the talk ended.
We didn’t want theory that went nowhere.
Somehow, that ended up working much better than we expected.
The idea was to reduce friction
Screenshot of the shared topic pool
Tiny Knowledge Bytes is intentionally simple:
anyone can suggest topics
anyone can end up presenting
you don’t need to master the topic
talks can come from experiments, client problems, tools or random discoveries
sessions should leave something practical behind
if nobody volunteers, the system picks someone for us
The goal was making knowledge sharing feel lightweight instead of exhausting.
Some of the best talks start with:
“I tried this yesterday and it was weird.”
The topic pool started growing on its own
Over time, topics started coming from everywhere.
Sometimes someone took a course and used a Tiny Knowledge Byte as a way to give something back to the team. Other times, a client problem triggered research into new tools, workflows or AI approaches.
A lot of sessions start from curiosity or necessity more than planning.
And honestly, the mix is part of what makes it interesting.
Sometimes a UX session drifts into Computer Vision. Sometimes someone technical shares a visual workflow that half the design team ends up adopting later.
There’s not much curation. It behaves more like a constant exploration system.
Then another problem appeared: choosing who presents
And this is where things became unnecessarily dramatic.
Nobody wanted to be “the person who chooses”. So we started adding absurd layers of randomness until we somehow ended up building a full internal app called 2FS.
Two Factor Sorteo.
Yes, it’s real.
The wheel proposes. The oracle decides.
The logic is simple.
First, a wheel picks someone.
Then a Magic 8 Ball decides whether destiny approves the selection.
If the oracle rejects the person, the process starts again.
That’s it.
The app accidentally became part of the learning loop too
Apps developed for the Tiny Knowledge Bytes.
2FS originally started as an excuse to experiment with:
Claude Code
Claude Design
design systems
editorial interfaces
motion and microinteractions
Eventually those same explorations turned into future Tiny Knowledge Bytes.
The tool we used to select speakers started generating new topics itself.
The system started feeding itself
One of the most interesting side effects is that people started building things outside their usual role because of previous Tiny Knowledge Bytes.
2FS itself is a good example. A designer saw sessions about Claude tooling and AI workflows and thought:
“Maybe I can actually build this.”
What started as a ridiculous speaker selection tool became a real product experiment involving Claude Code, interface systems and interaction design.
Then it came back into the Tiny Knowledge Bytes circuit as a new talk.
That loop became surprisingly valuable:
someone learns something,
tries it,
builds something with it,
and eventually inspires someone else to do the same.
What ended up mattering most
Final Oracle Certificate.
Over time we realized knowledge sharing works much better when:
it doesn’t require huge preparation
it’s allowed to be imperfect
it mixes different disciplines
it leaves something practical behind
and somehow involves a mystical wheel connected to a Magic 8 Ball
At that point, it stops feeling like another internal obligation and starts feeling like something people genuinely want to keep alive.
Just this month, I built a full design system in about 20 hours.
What used to take weeks, sometimes months, is now dramatically faster. So… what actually changed? And more importantly: what didn’t?
Design systems take time. On complex platforms, they can take hundreds of hours.
We were working with a large and complex product where inconsistencies had started to pile up. Different modules had evolved in isolation, teams were making independent decisions, and there were no shared guidelines. The answer was clear: we needed a design system.
AI tools were just starting to emerge back then. They were mostly useful for simple tasks as they tended to hallucinate when things got complex. Developers had started using them earlier than designers, MCP didn't exist yet, and Figma plugins were the best automation we had.
But the context has changed. Fast.
The Manual Era
We did what most teams did. We stopped, and we built it. Manually.
Picture two designers, a mountain of inconsistencies, and no map. We had to cross-reference information manually, digging through the code, detecting what could be merged, agreeing on naming conventions, deciding how to name components. Hours and hours of discussion until we finally landed on a solution.
In the end, we got there. A cleaner system, faster workflows, and for the first time, both teams speaking the same visual language. Hard-won, but it worked.
But now every month a new AI model seems to be released. Design is finally catching up with what developers faced about two years ago. New tools arose, and with that, the scope of our work as designers completely changed.
The Human Factor
For an internal project, I used our Kaizen site as a reference, combined with documentation from industry leaders as a guideline.
I started in v0, which is essentially a chat interface where you can generate UI components through prompts. I fed it the colors, typographies, and a reference image, and from there it was a back-and-forth: the AI generated, I reacted, adjusted, and pushed until the output matched what I had in my head. And just like that, I started prompting my way through a Design System.
Once a component was ready, I used the html.to.design plugin to bring it into Figma (yes, plugins are still alive!). Think of it as a bridge: the plugin exports designs directly from the browser into a Figma file.
Inside Figma, the intervention was more hands-on. First, I checked that everything was visually consistent with what was defined in v0: colors, typography, styles. Then I used Figma's built-in AI to rename all the component layers using BEM convention (something that would have taken a significant amount of time to do so manually).
BEM, which stands for Block Element Modifier, is a widely adopted naming convention in CSS. It structures layer names hierarchically and predictably, for example: button__label--disabled.
Using it keeps the code clean, readable, and consistent, especially when you're working alongside a developer who needs to understand what came out the other side.
Beyond naming, I also made sure the layer structure would generate the right properties when building component sets in Figma, so that all the variants would be correctly exposed and usable. My team also pointed out that adding descriptions to components and variants was key as context for any agent using them through an MCP.
The last step was connecting everything to Windsurf via MCP. With a frame selected in Dev Mode, Windsurf could read the Figma file and use the components to build more complex screens.
We worked closely with a developer throughout this phase. Not just for the technical knowledge, but because having someone who reads code fluently meant catching things we wouldn't have spotted otherwise. The design role here was direction and supervision: making sure the AI used the components correctly and didn't invent solutions where context was missing.
Every step of the process had a human decision behind it.
An Unexpected Discovery
At one point, before we had any of the naming conventions figured out, I selected a frame and asked Windsurf to build a form using the components inside it, styled to match a specific card. The developer next to me was skeptical until he saw the result, and then he was just as surprised as I was.
What we realized is that the MCP wasn't reading layer names to understand context. It was reading everything inside the frame, even the loose text sitting alongside the components. Good naming is still worth doing. But the MCP doesn't need it to understand what it's looking at.
Learning to Talk to an AI
The more specific and contained your prompt, the better the outcome. We started with the most atomic component: the button, and worked outward from there. Each approved component became context for the next one, so the system gradually picked up the visual language we were building.
At some point I got ambitious and asked for five cards in a single prompt: blog card, service card, testimonial card, stats card, feature card… structures, states and all. The AI delivered.
Visually, everything looked fine. Then the developer looked at the code and pointed out that all five cards were independent components instead of variants of one. For a design system, that breaks everything.
One correction prompt fixed it. But it was a good reminder: the AI does exactly what you ask, not what you mean. And fixing it after the fact can cost more than getting it right from the start.
Some Things Learned Along the Way
Precision is key. Natural language is fine when you're asking for a cooking recipe, but when referring to a component, if you say things like "create" instead of "add", you'll probably end up with a whole new set of components instead of additional variants of an existing one.
The "Frame" is the context: MCPs can read everything inside the frame you select. This is a game-changer. It means the "naming conventions" debate might be shifting. If the AI understands the context visually and structurally, will we still spend hours discussing nomenclature in 2027?
No matter what happens, you can always roll back in less than 5 minutes and start over.
Work closely with a developer: they can help you understand MCPs and clear up any code-related doubts. Once you start to grasp their logic, you'll learn very quickly how to prompt in ways that AI actually understands.
There's nothing to lose by asking the AI to follow a specific naming convention for the code. It keeps everything clean and readable, and it takes no extra effort.
The AI covers roughly 80% of the work (generation, variations, exploration...), but the remaining 20% is where quality lives, and that part is not delegable. The AI executes. The judgment is still yours. And if you skip the review, you're not saving time: you'll spend it later.
Context matters more than tooling. What you don't define, the AI will invent. Small components may be resolved well, but large interfaces require more definition from the start. A well-defined system scales. An undefined one generates inconsistencies faster than you can fix them.
Figma is no longer the mandatory starting point. It's useful as a visual reference, a QA space, or a consolidation layer. But the AI doesn't need it. We still do.
There's no single right workflow yet. What you do depends on the project. We're in a transition moment where the tools change faster than the standards. The best thing you can do right now is experiment.
What AI Still Can’t Replace
Through all of this, a few things became very clear. These are the parts that didn’t change:
Knowing when something looks off. The AI generates, but it doesn't notice when the result doesn't feel right. That eye is yours.
Direction and supervision. The AI used the components we gave it, but without someone supervising it, it invents solutions where there is no context to work from.
The definition of done is still a human call, whether it's a conversation with a PO, a stakeholder, or just the designer's criteria. There's no prompt for that.
The context: knowing why certain decisions matter, what a component should communicate, what the user will actually feel. Business knowledge, stakeholder dynamics, unwritten rules, empathy for the end user. These take years to build and live in the people doing the work, not in the tools they use.
My Two Cents
The tools changed, and that gave me the chills, but throughout this experience I found that the designer's role is more alive than ever.
What once took a team weeks can now be prototyped in hours. That’s not a threat; it’s an invitation to get curious.
I'm still figuring a lot of this out, and I suspect most of us are. There's no right workflow yet, and honestly, that's fine. We are in a transition where tools change faster than standards. The best thing you can do is experiment. Don't wait for a "definitive" workflow, it might be obsolete by next month.
Go ahead, try prompting your way through a component. You might be surprised how fast the system starts to take shape.
