I am not going to put a price table in this post, and it is not to dodge the question. Two landing pages with the same number of sections can have very different scopes: one arrives with finished copy and the client's own photos; the other needs the offer written from scratch, a CRM integration and a second language. A number on its own, without scope, confuses more than it helps.
What I can do is explain what drives the cost, what a good proposal needs to put in writing, and how to compare quotes that, at first glance, seem impossible to compare.
What actually drives the cost
Who writes the copy. It is the most labor-intensive part and the one most often left out of quotes. If you already have a defined offer and written text, the job is design and implementation. If not, someone has to understand the audience, organize the arguments, write and revise. A beautiful page with generic text does not solve the problem that motivated the page.
Custom design or adaptation. Adapting an existing template is faster. Designing the page from your identity and your offer takes longer. Neither is wrong by definition; what matters is that the proposal says which one you are buying.
Integrations and measurement. A form that only sends an email is one thing. A form that creates the contact in your CRM, triggers an automation and records the event in analytics, with an ad pixel configured, is another. Each integration adds setup, testing and one more thing to keep an eye on.
Content, variants and languages. Photos, illustrations, video, different versions for different campaigns, an English or Spanish version. All of that is scope, and all of it needs to appear in the proposal.
Timeline. With the content available, a landing page usually takes 5 to 10 business days in my process. Compressing that means rearranging the schedule and sometimes accepting more risk. Urgency has a cost, and it is better for it to be explicit.
What happens afterwards. Every page needs adjustments once it meets real traffic. An included adjustment period, ongoing maintenance or neither: those are three different proposals, even if the upfront price looks similar.
What a good proposal puts in writing
Before looking at the price, I would check whether the proposal answers these points:
- scope: sections, variants, languages and integrations, and also what is not included;
- who provides what: copy, images, logo, access to the domain and tools;
- timeline in business days, including what depends on you (approvals, sending content);
- revision rounds and how they work;
- verifiable technical criteria: responsiveness, accessibility based on the WCAG guidelines, performance measured with Core Web Vitals (web.dev considers an LCP of up to 2.5 seconds good, for example) and on-page SEO basics, which I detail in on-page SEO for landing pages;
- ownership: domain, hosting, repository and credentials in your name;
- payment: stages, methods and what triggers each installment;
- recurring costs listed separately: domain, hosting and paid tools should not be mixed into the project price.
Verifiable criteria are what most clearly separates serious proposals from vague promises. "A fast, optimized site" is not a criterion; a metric you can check yourself is.
How to compare quotes
Comparing prices only makes sense after comparing scope. These questions usually reveal the real difference between two quotes:
| What to compare | Question to ask | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| Copy | Who writes and revises the text? | Without clear copy, the page looks good and says nothing |
| Design | Is it custom or an adapted template? | It changes timeline, cost and how much the page reflects your brand |
| Integrations | Are form, WhatsApp, CRM and analytics included? | An integration left "for later" often becomes an extra cost |
| Ownership | Will the domain, hosting and code be in my name? | It avoids depending on the vendor to change or migrate |
| Recurring fees | Is there a monthly fee to keep the page online? | A low upfront price can hide an ongoing cost |
| After delivery | How do adjustments work after launch? | No page is born ready for real traffic |
One model worth watching is the "cheap" page hosted on the vendor's platform, with no access to the code and a monthly fee to keep it online. It is not necessarily bad, but it should be a conscious choice, not a surprise on the day you want to switch vendors.
The reverse also holds: the most expensive quote is not automatically the best. What matters is how much the page will work for you. A page that does not explain the offer well wastes ad spend, referrals and organic traffic, and that cost never shows up in any quote. What the page needs to contain to do its job is in how to structure a landing page that converts.
How I put together a quote
I start with a short written brief: the offer, the audience, where the traffic comes from, what already exists (copy, photos, visual identity), references and the desired timeline. If a call helps clarify something, we have one; if not, everything goes through email, WhatsApp or whatever tool you already use.
With that, I send a written proposal with the exact scope, timeline and price. The contract goes by email, with a digital signature. Payment is in stages: a deposit to start and the balance on delivery, by bank transfer, card or PayPal for clients abroad, or Pix, boleto or card in Brazil. Domain, hosting, repository and credentials are in your name from day one. More on how I work with websites is on the websites page.
If you already have a quote in hand and want to compare, or would like a proposal for your case, just write to me through the contact page.