Which Software Programmer tier fits a city property team?

Count the separate tools your team actually needs, not the months you expect to use them. A property desk chasing owners and developers in one city usually needs a small number of working apps: one to hold contact records, one to log site visits, perhaps one to take deposit payments. That count is the figure to settle before you look at any tier.

The tier names tell you how many finished apps you receive, so your decision is about build count rather than access time. Nothing about a lifetime slot expires while you use it. What varies between the tiers is the number of apps, not the amount of support or the length of access.

Write the count down before you brief anything. Teams that guess at this number often buy more slots than the work justifies, or buy one slot and then discover that two separate builds were always the plan. One honest list of tools, drawn from what your team does each week, is the only figure you need.

At the smallest level you get a single app built from a written brief, with data storage, logins and payments included. For a city property team, that could be the contact tracker your negotiators use when they work through a list of local owners and developers, with sign-in for each person and payment handling if you take deposits.

The middle level gives you three apps on the same terms. That suits a team that wants its contact records, its site visit log and its client-facing enquiry form kept as separate builds rather than folded into one crowded tool. Each build starts from a brief you write, so the work follows your patch rather than a national template.

The largest level gives you ten apps. This is for a team running several distinct workflows across a city, or for a group that expects to add tools over time without returning to the buying decision. The same brief-led process and the same included data, logins and payments apply at every level.

Your objection is that national data arrives with no local detail, and the answer sits in how the work is described rather than in a list you buy. You are not purchasing a database of owners and developers. You write the brief, and the app is built around the streets, postcodes and contact habits your team already works with.

That distinction matters when you compare platforms. A tool that arrives preloaded with national records will feel thin the moment your negotiator needs the owner of a specific terrace on a specific road. A tool built from your own brief starts from your patch, and your team fills it with the detail that only local work produces.

So the comparison question is not which platform holds the biggest list. It is which platform lets your team describe its own working method and receive an app that matches it. Settle that, and the tier choice becomes a simple count of how many separate apps that method needs.

Moving from one app to three buys you two further builds, each with its own slot and its own brief. In practice that means you can separate the internal contact tool from the client-facing one without redesigning the first. The extra money goes into additional finished apps rather than into more time or more seats.

Moving from three to ten buys seven further slots. A team with several workflows across one city may reach that point, particularly where different parts of the business need their own logins and their own data. The step is worth taking when you can name the next builds, not when you hope to find them later.

Each step up carries the same underlying terms. The store that sells every deal keeps its own rules, and those rules sit alongside whichever tier you pick. Detailed requests may need review before work begins, so plan the sequence of your builds rather than expecting all of them at once.