The RPO-versus-in-house decision usually gets framed as a cost question, but volume and predictability matter more than headcount. A 500-person company hiring five roles a year has very different needs from a 50-person company scaling to 150 in twelve months.
When in-house recruitment usually wins
Steady, predictable hiring volume with strong existing employer brand favours an in-house team — the fixed cost of full-time recruiters is justified by consistent throughput, and institutional knowledge compounds over time.
When RPO usually wins
Volatile or rapidly scaling hiring volume, new market entry, or a need to fill specialised roles without a permanent internal specialist all tend to favour RPO — you get surge capacity and specific expertise without a long-term fixed headcount commitment.
- Rapid headcount scaling after funding, where in-house hiring can't keep pace
- Entering a new city or country without existing recruiter relationships there
- Seasonal or project-based hiring that doesn't justify permanent recruiter headcount
Hybrid models are increasingly common
Many mid-size employers keep a lean in-house team for leadership and culture-critical hires, and route high-volume or specialised roles to an RPO partner. This isn't a compromise — it's often the most cost-efficient structure available.
FOGS Recruitment runs both full RPO engagements and hybrid models — a hiring consultation will help clarify which fits your current stage.