Scaling a SaaS platform: lessons from Pure Alpha

Building SaaS teaches you discipline fast. You learn what scales and what breaks. What features matter and what just feels exciting in a brainstorm. What users actually do versus what you hoped they would do. At Vexia, that experience became our blueprint. Because when you’ve built your own products, you stop thinking like a developer and start thinking like a system architect. Every new product we take on begins with that mindset. Simple logic. Clear flow. Measurable outcomes. It’s the same principle behind every successful platform we’ve launched, and it’s why we never build without a framework for scale.

Building SaaS teaches you discipline fast. You learn what scales and what breaks. What features matter and what just feels exciting in a brainstorm. What users actually do versus what you hoped they would do. At Vexia, that experience became our blueprint. Because when you’ve built your own products, you stop thinking like a developer and start thinking like a system architect. Every new product we take on begins with that mindset. Simple logic. Clear flow. Measurable outcomes. It’s the same principle behind every successful platform we’ve launched, and it’s why we never build without a framework for scale.

How we accidentally ended up with a platform engineering team What started as a fleet management software overhaul quickly became a story of platform engineering. A small cloud team, set up to modernize the architecture, grew into domain-specific product teams that took on Infra as Code, CI/CD, and production ops. As the transformation unfolded, cloud governance evolved into four dedicated platform teams, each building capabilities for developers. The turning point came with the introduction of a product owner, aligning vision and shaping a cohesive platform strategy. This session shares the unexpected journey, the lessons learned, and how platform engineering emerged as the foundation of the organization’s cloud-native future. 👉 Watch the session here: https://lnkd.in/eanSnyeY

They told him it would cost $90K to build his MVP. I nearly spat out my coffee. A founder friend of mine had done everything right: → Validated his SaaS idea → Had early users ready to test → Built a basic prototype on a no-code tool Then he reached out to a big and well-known outsourcing company. Their quote? -> $90,000. For an MVP. Not a polished product. Not a production-ready system. Just version 1.0. Lean, functional, testable. Look, I’ve been in this industry long enough to know agencies have overhead. But in 2025, paying so much money for a simple MVP build? That’s not innovation. That’s inefficiency. We now have: → AI-assisted coding → Drag-and-drop frameworks → Prebuilt modules → Backend-as-a-service platforms → Proven agile workflows Building smarter is no longer optional. It’s expected. The truth is, you can get your SaaS off the ground for a fraction of that cost. Without cutting corners or quality. At Radency, we help founders: → Launch real MVPs in weeks, not months → Validate fast and avoid tech debt → Spend wisely, not blindly So, if you’ve got a SaaS idea, but the quotes you’re getting feel insane. Take a breath. You’re not crazy. You’re just talking to the wrong people. Let’s build something that makes sense. Financially and strategically.

Great software is not just about shipping fast. It is about building systems that last. From SaaS startups to enterprise transformations, our work shows how secure, auditable, and scalable architecture can accelerate delivery without sacrificing quality. See what we've built. 🔗 https://lnkd.in/g5-6R4P7 #SoftwareDevelopment #EngineeringLeadership #SOC2 #SecureArchitecture

A few months back, I worked with a mid-size SaaS company that needed to rebuild a major part of their platform. Their in-house team was fully booked with ongoing releases and support, so they brought us in to handle the new functionality. From the outside, it looked like a typical plug-and-play setup. They handed over specs, we wrote code, delivered on time. But something felt off. After the first couple of sprints, velocity was fine, but the results weren’t really landing. Features worked, but not in the way their users expected. Turns out, we were building with half the picture. Their product team had made a few key tradeoffs early on - decisions about user flows, third-party tools, even naming conventions - but none of that made it into the specs. We were solving for logic, but missing the intent. So we asked to be looped in earlier. Not just on tickets, but on the actual product thinking. Within two weeks, everything changed. We didn’t just ship faster - we shipped smarter. Fewer revisions, better outcomes, and a team that felt genuinely aligned. Lesson learned: the best partner teams don’t need more specs. They need more context. If you’re bringing in external engineers, give them access to the thinking behind the roadmap. It doesn’t slow you down - it does the opposite.

Software teams are obsessed with speed — launch faster, ship quicker, iterate constantly. We get it. We build SaaS products too. But there’s a critical distinction we’ve learned while scaling platforms at Pure Alpha Solutions: speed is not the same as momentum. Shipping fast can feel like progress, but momentum comes from direction — clarity on problem, user need, and product scope. One leads to burnouts and feature bloat, the other leads to sustainable growth. That’s why, before writing a single line of code, we align architecture to value. We validate real pain points. And we build frameworks — both technical and human — that allow teams to move confidently, not just quickly. In one of our recent AI integration projects, this shift helped a client avoid thousands in rework by adding a 2-week “pause” up front. That’s real velocity. Faster isn’t always better — smarter is. If you're building SaaS and you’ve felt the pressure to “just ship,” talk to us. We'll help you build momentum that lasts.

Bootstrapped SaaS founders learn one thing fast: Clients don’t buy “tech.” They buy trust. You can automate anything, but if your client doesn’t believe your numbers, you’ll still lose the renewal. In pricing, trust = data accuracy × transparency × response speed. Everything else is noise. The tech stack doesn’t retain clients. Reliability does!

I think it’s time to redefine what “success” means in SaaS. for decades, it was measured by how big you could get — global reach, millions in ARR, VC rounds that made headlines. that made sense back then. building software used to cost millions. you needed years to hit PMF, full-stack teams, and access to engineering talent that only 3% of the population had. that equation’s collapsing. the cost of development is near zero comparatively speaking. vibe coding is letting anyone build products in days, not years. you can build something real for a few thousand bucks — sometimes less. sam altman called it the era of “fast fashion SaaS.” i disagree. i think we’re entering the era of “mom-and-pop SaaS”. small, local, purpose-built products that serve real communities. not global domination — but sustainable, lovable businesses that let their creators make a comfortable living. the future of software isn’t scale. it’s community. #saas

𝗕𝘂𝗶𝗹𝗱 𝘃𝘀. 𝗕𝘂𝘆: 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗜𝗻𝗳𝗿𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗗𝗲𝗰𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗙𝗿𝗮𝗺𝗲𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸 Your VP of Engineering wants to build an internal developer platform. Your infrastructure lead says Kubernetes can do it all. Finance just saw the bill from your last “build” decision and now wants everything SaaS. The debate loops for weeks because no one is using the same decision framework. 𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝗶𝘁 𝗴𝗲𝘁 𝗺𝗲𝘀𝘀𝘆: Teams argue through their own incentives. Engineering wants technical depth, finance wants predictable costs, and product wants speed. Everyone’s right, but optimizing for different targets. The real question isn’t build or buy? It’s what are we actually buying with each choice? 𝗪𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗯𝘂𝗶𝗹𝗱:  • 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗹 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗰𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗺𝗶𝘇𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻: full ownership of your roadmap and integrations.  • 𝗘𝗻𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗲𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗯𝗮𝗻𝗱𝘄𝗶𝗱𝘁𝗵: your best people spend months on infrastructure instead of product.  • 𝗠𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗻𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲: the first 30 percent is build; the rest is years of upkeep, patches, and upgrades.  • 𝗢𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘁𝗶𝘀𝗲: you’re running a service, not just deploying code. 𝗪𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗯𝘂𝘆:  • 𝗦𝗽𝗲𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗺𝗮𝗿𝗸𝗲𝘁: vendor tools deliver in weeks, not quarters.  • 𝗩𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗼𝗿 𝗹𝗼𝗰𝗸-𝗶𝗻: convenience now can mean constraints later.  • 𝗖𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝘀𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴: SaaS looks affordable until usage or scale multiplies costs exponentially.  • 𝗙𝗶𝘁 𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗶𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀: vendors build for the majority; your edge cases become compromises. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗰 𝗳𝗿𝗮𝗺𝗲𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸:  • 𝗕𝘂𝗶𝗹𝗱 for core differentiators, unique workflows, or compliance-heavy infrastructure.  • 𝗕𝘂𝘆 for solved problems, commodity layers, or areas beyond your operational depth. Map your infrastructure against advantage versus commodity and competency versus learning curve. Most teams realize 80 percent should be “buy,” but they’re still building 60. What’s the costliest build-versus-buy call you’ve seen? #AWS #awscommunity #kubernetes #CloudNative #DevOps #Containers #TechLeadership #CloudArchitecture