AI ERP with agents inside the systems you run
AI phone and voice agents for real calls
LLM.coPrivate, self-hosted LLM deployments
Legal AI infrastructure for firms
AI RFP discovery and response drafting
Automatic.coBusiness process automation
CyberAttack.aiThreat detection and defense
Secure AI virtual data rooms
0
Client contacts we initiate
Ever, without written sign-off
100%
Delivered under your brand
Repo, docs, and support
<24 hrs
Escalation response
When their production is down
5
Kinds of partners we serve
Agencies to dev shops overflowing
What white label actually means
In practice, not just on the invoice
The term gets used loosely enough that it's worth being specific about what actually changes hands, and what stays with you regardless of who wrote the code. Get vague about any one of these and 'white label' quietly becomes just 'outsourced' with better branding, which is a different arrangement with different risk sitting underneath the same name.
Your name on the repository
Commits authored under your organization or a name you provide, hosted in a repo you own or control access to. If you ever end the relationship, the history goes with you, not with us — including the commit graph itself, which would otherwise make it obvious a different company touched the code.
Your name in the documentation
READMEs, architecture notes, and runbooks are written with your branding and addressed to your team, because your team — or the client's — is who eventually has to read them without us in the room. We write for a reader who has never been on a call with us, because that's usually who ends up reading it.
Your support inbox handles the first response
When something breaks, the end client emails your address, not ours. We work the ticket behind the scenes and you close the loop, or we draft the reply for you to send in your own voice. The end client's experience of support is your name and your tone, start to finish, even though the fix happened on our side.
No watermark anywhere
No footer link, no license header, no email signature, no code comment that gives us away. If a client's own engineer ever reads the codebase, there is nothing in it pointing back to DEV.co — we treat that as a checklist item on every handover, not an assumption.
Your tools, not a portal of ours
We work inside whatever you already run — your ticketing system, your project board, your git host — under an account you control, rather than asking you to check a separate system for status. If you want a single login to see everything, it's already there, because it was never a separate system to begin with.
Nobody sees two invoices
You bill your client however you already do; the only invoice we issue is the one addressed to you. Two invoices for one deliverable is usually the first thing that gives a white-label arrangement away.
Who resells engineering this way
Agencies are the most common buyer. They are not the only one.
The pattern is the same regardless of what sits on top of it: someone else owns the client relationship and the brand, and needs engineering delivered underneath it without their name coming off the work. What changes across these is the shape of the deliverable, not the rules governing how it's delivered.
Marketing agencies
Client work that needs real engineering — a custom app, an integration, an AI feature — beyond what an agency's design and marketing staff can build. The scoping, the brief, and the commercial arrangement work differently enough for agencies specifically that we cover it on its own page.
Consultancies
Strategy or management consultancies that scope a technical recommendation and then need someone to actually build it, without standing up an engineering practice of their own for one engagement. The consultancy keeps the strategic relationship and the credit for the recommendation; we're the reason it actually ships.
Design studios
Studios that own the visual and UX work for a client and need the build executed to match, without hiring engineers whose skills sit idle between design contracts. The build has to hold up to the same visual bar the studio already set, which is as much a design constraint on us as a technical one.
SaaS companies shipping a feature
A product team that knows exactly what it wants built but doesn't have the specific skill in-house — a payments overhaul, an AI feature, a migration — and would rather ship it as their own pull requests than open a new hiring line for one feature. It merges through their normal review process, reviewed by their own engineers, rather than arriving as a black box at the end.
Other dev shops, overflowing
A shop with more signed work than staff, using us as capacity under its own delivery process rather than referring the client elsewhere and losing the account entirely. From the client's side, nothing changes — the shop that signed the contract is still the shop delivering it.
Internal teams inside a larger company
A marketing, innovation, or ops team that wants a tool built and shipped as an internal deliverable, without routing the request through a central IT backlog that would take a quarter longer. The engineering is ours; the department that requested it is who presents the result upward.
NDA, non-solicit, and who talks to the client
The paperwork, and the rule that makes it enforceable
None of this works on trust alone. It works because the agreement says exactly who can contact whom, and what happens to information that crosses the line — written down before anyone needs to point to it, rather than negotiated for the first time in the middle of a problem.
NDA before we see a name
Mutual non-disclosure is standard before any client detail changes hands — the end client's name, their systems, their data. It is the first document signed, not an afterthought added once someone gets nervous. It covers our side too: anything proprietary about how we work stays out of your hands the same way your client's details stay out of ours.
Non-solicit, in both directions
We do not approach your end client for direct work, and we do not poach the relationship you built. The same clause protects you if we ever bring in engineers who might otherwise be tempted to go around the agreement — it's a two-way constraint precisely because a one-way version only protects whoever wrote it.
One point of contact allowed to reach the client
Our engineers don't have the end client's contact information as a rule, and correspondence runs through your account manager or support address, not around it. That's not a bureaucratic hurdle; it's the mechanism that makes 'we never contact your client' something you can actually verify rather than just take our word for. New engineers joining a partner's engagement are onboarded onto that rule on day one, not left to figure it out from context.
What happens if the client emails us directly anyway
It occasionally happens by accident — a forwarded thread, a reply-all. We don't respond to the substance of it; we forward it back to you and let you decide how it gets answered. We'd rather look overly cautious once than be the reason a boundary got tested and quietly moved.
What we do if we spot something urgent
If our engineers notice something during the work that genuinely can't wait — a security issue, data at risk — we flag it to you immediately and let you decide how and whether to reach the client, rather than acting on it ourselves.
How engagements are structured
Engagement shapes for white-label work
The arrangement changes shape depending on whether it's one deliverable, a running relationship, or overflow capacity — but the invoice always goes to you, never to the end client, and the branding rules from the sections above apply the same way across every row in this table.
| Arrangement | Commitment | Timeline | What it includes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scoping only | Fixed, credited toward the build | Before committing to a full engagement | A short paid engagement that turns a rough ask into a real, buildable scope, deliverable regardless of who does the work afterward. |
| Fixed-price build | Per deliverable, fixed scope | Set at scoping, milestone-based | One deliverable under your brand: a client site, a feature, an app, invoiced to you at agreed milestones. |
| Retained capacity | Monthly, cancel at 30 days | Ongoing | Recurring white-label work across multiple end clients or one ongoing product, scaled at renewal rather than mid-sprint. |
| Embedded pod | Monthly, ongoing | Ongoing | A lead plus engineers working under your name against a steady volume of work, reporting on your cadence. |
| Feature build for a SaaS product | Per feature, fixed or milestone-based | Set at scoping | Delivered as pull requests into your existing repo, under your own engineering process. |
| Overflow for another dev shop | Hourly or per sprint | As needed | Capacity inside your own delivery process, billed to you and never split with your client. |
Cost is driven by scope, not a rate card — how well-defined the deliverable is, how many systems it has to integrate with, and how much ongoing capacity you need versus one build. We don't take a commission on what you charge downstream and we don't ask what that number is. A specific figure comes out of a scoping call once we've seen the work, not out of a table like this one. Ask any partner how their pricing actually reaches your client — a hidden markup or an origination fee baked into the rate is common enough in this industry that it's worth asking about directly rather than assuming it isn't there. If a vendor won't answer that question plainly, treat it as an answer on its own.
Handover and what happens when something breaks
Documentation written for a team that isn't us, and a defined answer when their client is down
Two different moments where this arrangement is tested: the day you take the work in-house, and the day it goes down in production. Both are handled in writing, before either one happens, because neither is a good time to be improvising a process while your end client is waiting on an answer.
Documentation written for someone else's team
Runbooks and architecture notes assume the reader has never spoken to us — because eventually, whether that's your engineers or the end client's, that will be true. We'd rather over-explain a decision once in writing than field the same question by email eighteen months from now.
An SLA that names a response time, not a best effort
Production incidents get an initial response inside twenty-four hours, faster for anything that has taken the end client's product down. A number you can hold us to is worth more than a reassurance you can't.
Status flows back to you, not to the end client
During an incident we update the point of contact you designate — usually you — and you decide what the end client sees and when, in your own voice and on your own timeline. That includes the awkward updates, not just the good ones.
A postmortem you can hand off, or keep
After anything serious, a written account of what happened and what changed. You can pass it to the end client under your own letterhead, keep it internal, or ask us to redact anything you'd rather not share — either way, the paper trail exists, which matters more than it seems the first time an incident becomes a bigger conversation months later.
A named escalation contact, not a ticket queue
During an incident you're talking to a specific person who already knows the system, not filing into a queue and waiting for whoever picks it up next. That person stays the same across the engagement, so the second incident goes faster than the first.
Related
Related services
If the audience reading this is specifically a marketing agency, or the actual need is capacity rather than a delivery model, one of these three is a closer fit than the general case covered above.
Questions
Questions
What teams ask before a first call.
It means the work carries your name at every layer that matters: the repository, the commit history, the documentation, and the inbox that fields support questions. Nothing in the deliverable points back to DEV.co, down to the commit history and the file metadata — a detail smaller agencies often skip and larger ones always ask about.
It does not mean we disappear operationally — we still run the engineering, review the code, and own the technical decisions. It means the client-facing surface is entirely yours, and the parts that aren't client-facing are still built to a standard you'd be comfortable putting your name on.
Not from us. NDA and non-solicit are signed before we see any client detail, our engineers don't have the client's contact information as a default, and nothing in the codebase or documentation identifies us, down to license headers and package metadata.
The one way it could surface is if you choose to disclose it — some partners do, later in a relationship, once trust is established. That's your call to make, not something we do on your behalf, and we won't raise it first.
Yes, as the first document, not a follow-up once someone raises it. Mutual non-disclosure covers the client's name, systems, and data, and the non-solicit clause runs both directions — we don't approach your client, and we don't try to poach the relationship, in either direction. This is not a courtesy version of the paperwork; it's the same agreement we'd expect to be held to ourselves.
If your legal team has a standard template, we'll work from it. If not, we have one that covers the same ground and can be reviewed before anything else starts. We'd rather spend a week on paperwork upfront than have an ambiguous agreement tested for the first time during a disagreement.
By default, nobody on our side. Correspondence routes through your point of contact, and our engineers aren't given the client's information unless a specific engagement calls for it and you've agreed to it in writing, because that agreement is what makes the boundary enforceable rather than just assumed. New engineers are onboarded onto that rule as part of joining the engagement, not left to pick it up from context after a mistake.
If a client email reaches us anyway — a forward, a reply-all — we don't respond to the content of it. We send it back to you and let you decide how it gets handled, which keeps you in control of the relationship even when a mistake happens on someone else's end.
An initial response inside twenty-four hours as a stated commitment, faster when the end client is actually down rather than degraded. We work the incident, and status updates go to whoever you designate as the point of contact — typically you, not the client directly, so you control what they hear and when.
After anything serious, you get a written postmortem you can pass along under your own branding, keep internal, or have us redact before it goes anywhere. We treat that document as something you might need to defend a decision with later, not just a formality to close the ticket.
No — agencies are the most common buyer, but the same arrangement fits consultancies that scoped a build they can't staff, design studios executing past their own visual work, SaaS companies shipping a feature they lack the specific skill for, other dev shops that are simply over capacity, and internal teams inside a larger company shipping something under their own department rather than through central IT.
What all of them share is the same requirement: someone else's name on the relationship, and engineering delivered underneath it without that changing. The mechanics — NDA, non-solicit, no direct contact — are identical regardless of which kind of business is reselling the work. If you're not sure which bucket you fall into, that's a five-minute conversation, not a reason to assume the arrangement doesn't apply to you.