A business that keeps asking research questions eventually asks whether to hire someone. The comparison below sets a retained research desk against an in-house analyst on the dimensions a choice between them can turn on: knowledge of your business, range of source work, continuity and the load of managing the role.
The question is not which is cheaper in the abstract. It is whether your research need has the volume, the stability and the depth of context that justifies a person who sits in your business. Below that threshold, a desk with agreed hours is the lighter commitment. Above it, the desk may become the overflow or the second opinion rather than the main source.
Both can coexist: an analyst for the core, a desk for peaks and for work outside the analyst's strengths.
No option wins on every row; the one that matters is the row your decision actually turns on.
Retained desk: Built through the standing list and source log; limited to what you share. In-house analyst: Deep and daily; grows with exposure to your decisions.
Retained desk: Set by the desk's practice; varies by question type. In-house analyst: Depends on the person's background and tools.
Retained desk: Held in the arrangement, its source log and the agreed scope. In-house analyst: Tied to one person; leave or turnover removes context.
Retained desk: Scope changes by agreement at intake or review. In-house analyst: Fixed capacity; idle in quiet periods, stretched in busy ones.
Retained desk: Intake and review of output. In-house analyst: Day-to-day direction, goal setting and supervision.
Retained desk: Outside the organisation. In-house analyst: Sits within the organisation and reports to it.
Neither option promises coverage of a market or any particular outcome.
The volume does not justify a salary. A desk with a short list and an hours block is proportionate.
Context matters daily and an analyst probably earns their place. A desk is useful for overflow and for work needing a different skill.
Retaining a desk for a period is a lighter way to find out what the volume really is before committing to a post.
Count what you asked in the last months and how many were genuinely recurring.
If nobody owns the answers, neither option helps.
If no decision turns on it, reduce the scope before hiring or retaining anyone.
Research reports what can be established from public and provided sources. It is not a guarantee about a counterparty's future conduct and not legal advice.
For some volumes of public-source research, yes. It cannot replace someone with access to your own files and meetings.
The source log and notes can serve as a record of how questions were handled. Training is not part of the scope.
Only what you choose to provide, labelled as client-provided in the output.
No obligation. We read your request and reply with a straight answer.
Tell us what you need to find out and by when. We confirm scope before any work starts.
Request research