Westport Health District patient portal
Build vs buy slide with one costed verdict a side
A build versus buy slide decided on the build price alone always picks buy, because the build number arrives as a single project figure and the licence arrives as a small annual one. This one belongs to Westport Health District, a fictional health service, and compares the two over five years rather than over the first eighteen months.
What is on the slide
- Framing
- The patient portal for Westport Health District. Over five years the two paths land within $200,000 of each other.
- Build
- $1.9M over 18 months. Two contract developers, a product lead and an integration built against the patient record, then $310,000 a year to run it after go live.
- Buy
- $640k a year. A licensed portal live in five months, configured rather than coded, with the record integration supported by the vendor under the contract.
- Layout note
- Exactly one item a side, at display size, in two panels of equal width. No bullet lists and no recommendation printed on the slide.
When this is the right slide
A big verdict pair suits a build versus buy slide when the decision has reduced to one number and one sentence a side and the audience needs both at the same size.
What to swap it for
Comparison: 3 Option Trade-off Cards. Swap to the three option cards when a third path exists, such as partnering or buying now and building later, so the decision is not framed as a binary that was never real.
What this slide shows
A title reads Build or Buy, with a one line framing sentence: the patient portal for Westport Health District, and over five years the two paths land within $200,000 of each other. Two full height panels follow, labelled BUILD and BUY. The build panel carries the display sized verdict $1.9M over 18 months, with the sentence two contract developers, a product lead and an integration built against the patient record, then $310,000 a year to run it after go live. The buy panel carries $640k a year, with the sentence a licensed portal live in five months, configured rather than coded, with the record integration supported by the vendor under the contract. There are no bullet lists on either side, no feature comparison and no recommendation on the slide itself, because the layout holds exactly one item per side and the recommendation belongs in the words the presenter says next.
When this is the right slide
Use it when a decision has genuinely reduced to two numbers and the room needs to see them at the same size, in an executive meeting, a board paper or a steering committee. It works best when the analysis behind it already exists and this slide is the summary, not the working. It is the wrong slide when a third path exists, such as buy now and build later, or partner: three option cards give each path its own criteria and stop the discussion being framed as a binary that was never real. It is also wrong when the two sides need their assumptions listed, because a single sentence cannot carry a discount rate, a staffing assumption and a contract term, and an audience that cannot see the assumptions will ask for them before discussing anything else.
How to adapt it
First, cost both paths over the same horizon and say what it is. Five years is the common choice for a system with a contract term behind it, and the horizon should be stated on the slide rather than left in the appendix. Second, include the run cost on the build side, because a build that is quoted as a project and run for free is the most common way a build versus buy slide misleads its own authors. Third, name what differs besides money: time to live, who carries the integration risk, and what happens at the end of the term. If the numbers are close, those become the decision, and the slide should be followed by one that sets them out rather than leaving them to be argued in the room.
What makes this slide work
The framing line removes the easy answer
Over five years the two paths land within $200,000 of each other. Once that sentence is on the slide, the meeting cannot be won by comparing $1.9M against $640,000, and the discussion moves to the things that actually differ: five months against eighteen, a vendor supported integration against one the district owns, and who carries the risk.
Each side is one headline and one sentence
$1.9M over 18 months, and $640k a year. Under each sits a single sentence naming what the money buys: two contract developers, a product lead and an integration against the patient record, then $310,000 a year to run it; or a licensed portal live in five months, configured rather than coded, with the integration supported under the contract.
The panels are the same size
Two full height panels of equal width, one tinted and one in the brand colour. Neither option gets more room to make its case, which matters on a slide where the executive in the room usually already has a preference. The design cannot be used to argue; only the two sentences can.
Questions people ask
What should a build vs buy slide compare?
Total cost over the same horizon, time to live, and who carries the risk. Comparing a build project price against an annual licence is the most common error, because one is a capital figure and the other is an operating one. State the horizon on the slide so the comparison can be checked rather than assumed.
Why include the run cost of a build?
Because software that is built still has to be hosted, patched, supported and changed, and those costs often exceed the build inside five years. This slide names $310,000 a year after go live. A build costed as a one off project and compared with a licence that includes support is not a comparison at all.
How long should the comparison horizon be?
Usually three to five years, matched to the contract term or the expected life of the system. Shorter horizons favour buying because the build cost lands up front; longer ones favour building for the same reason in reverse. Whichever is chosen, say so on the slide, since the horizon is the assumption that decides the answer.
Should the slide state a recommendation?
This layout holds one item a side and no verdict card, so the recommendation is spoken or sits on the following slide. That is often the right order for an executive audience: show the two numbers at the same size, let the room absorb that they are close, then make the case on time and risk rather than on price.
When should this be split into two slides?
Split when the assumptions need to be visible, which is most of the time in a procurement process. A common pattern is this verdict pair first, then a slide listing the five year model for each path with the staffing, licence and hosting lines set out so an evaluator can check the arithmetic.
What if there is a third option?
Use a different layout. A two panel verdict slide forces a binary, and many real decisions include partnering, buying now and building later, or extending the existing system. Presenting three paths as two is the fastest way to have the decision reopened after the meeting, when somebody names the option that was left off.
Build your own in about a minute
The button below opens the generator with this use case already described. Change the wording to match your own, generate, then edit anything you like.
Make one like thisOther slide examples
In house vs outsourced slide with five matched rows
An in house versus outsourced slide is decided by cost only when nothing else on it is measured, which is how practices end up outsourcing a function and regretting it within a year. This one belongs to Meridian Dental, a fictional practice, and asks the same five questions of both options.
Three options slide with trade off cards
A three option slide only helps a decision when every option is scored against the same criteria, in the same order, with the same level of detail. This one compares three fictional venues for a 420 delegate conference on capacity, cost, and travel with the risk attached.
Callout comparison table slide with a verdict and the evidence
A callout comparison table slide puts the decision first and the evidence beside it, so nobody has to infer the recommendation from a grid of cells. This one belongs to Aurora Aged Care, a fictional provider choosing a rostering system for three homes.
Want the steps in the builder? Read Add, reorder and restructure slides, then Make a pitch presentation with AI. For everything this generator can do, see the slide maker.
Written and checked by the OneCraft team. Last checked .