A Speed, Quality, Price Reality Check

This is some text inside of a div block.
This is some text inside of a div block.
•
This is some text inside of a div block.
min read
IconIconIconIcon

Everyone knows the cliché: “Fast, cheap, good—pick two.” It’s been passed around boardrooms and project kickoff meetings for decades, often with a knowing smile. It’s a neat phrase, but if you’ve ever been on the hook for choosing a vendor, you know the story is much messier.

Vendor decisions don’t happen in clean triangles. They happen in the middle of real business pressures—deadlines, budgets, customer expectations, competitive threats, and the occasional 2 a.m. fire drill from the board. You’re not just picking two. You’re deciding what matters most right now, what risks you’re willing to tolerate, and where compromise won’t fly.

The trouble is, too many teams use the triangle as a slogan instead of a strategy. They repeat it, nod, and then go straight into negotiations without clarifying which corner of the triangle really matters for this decision. That’s how you end up paying for “fast and cheap” and then discovering that “good” wasn’t even in the room.

So let’s take the triangle apart, see how speed, quality, and price actually play out, and then rebuild it into something you can use as a real framework for vendor choices.

The vendor triangle, simplified

At its core, the triangle is about tradeoffs. No vendor can maximize speed, quality, and price at once. If they claim otherwise, either they’re cutting corners you can’t see yet, or they haven’t scaled enough customers to reveal the cracks.

  • Speed: How quickly can they deliver value—implementation, onboarding, milestones, results? This is about responsiveness and adaptability.
  • Quality: How reliable is the product or service—performance, compliance, customer outcomes, security, and innovation?
  • Price: What’s the total cost of ownership—contract terms, integration costs, staff time, hidden fees, risk?

The triangle works because it forces a choice. But it breaks down when leaders don’t name their priority upfront.

When speed is the priority

Sometimes speed isn’t just nice to have—it’s existential.

  • A startup racing to show traction before a funding round closes. Investors aren’t grading you on elegance; they want proof you can move.
  • A biotech pushing to meet a regulatory deadline. Submitting one quarter late might mean millions in lost market potential.
  • A SaaS company trying to stay a step ahead of a competitor’s feature release. Being first can mean market share, brand buzz, and pricing power.

In these scenarios, speed outweighs everything else. You’ll often tolerate inflated prices (rush fees, overstaffed projects) and a dent in quality (technical debt, manual processes) just to keep the timeline intact.

The danger? Once speed becomes the anchor, teams forget to circle back. You solve today’s deadline but create tomorrow’s drag.

Ask: If we hit the deadline but the solution breaks in six months, will it still be worth it?

When quality is non-negotiable

Other times, “good enough” is a trap.

  • Clinical trials where data integrity carries both regulatory and ethical weight.
  • Enterprise SaaS contracts where downtime means millions in customer losses.
  • Consumer-facing apps where a single glitch can go viral and erode trust.

Here, a failure in quality isn’t just inconvenient—it’s catastrophic. The vendor’s reliability becomes part of your reputation. Cutting corners isn’t an option.

That doesn’t mean you ignore cost or time. It means you’re explicit that quality is the anchor and the others must flex around it.

Ask: If this fails, what’s the cost—in dollars, customers, or credibility?

If the cost is too high to bear, then quality isn’t a nice-to-have. It’s the price of admission.

When price drives the decision

And sometimes, budgets simply rule the day.

  • Procurement teams are pressured to cut costs in mature categories like payroll, CRM, or commodity hosting.
  • SMBs running lean, where “best in class” tools just aren’t possible.
  • Projects that aren’t strategic, where “good enough” frees resources for higher-value bets.

Price-led decisions can be smart, but they’re the riskiest if you don’t ask the right questions. Vendors who look cheapest on paper often cost the most in practice—through weak support, surprise fees, or early replacement cycles.

Ask: Am I choosing cheap to win flexibility elsewhere, or am I just defaulting to the lowest number?

Being cost-conscious is smart. Being cost-blind is expensive.

Balancing act

Most vendor choices don’t sit neatly in one corner. They live in the middle, where you’re negotiating tradeoffs.

One way to make this explicit is with a weighted scoring model:

  • Speed = 40%
  • Quality = 50%
  • Price = 10%

Now when you evaluate vendors, you’re not just reacting to sales pitches—you’re testing them against what actually matters.

Example: A mid-market SaaS company evaluating a new CRM.

  • They weigh quality at 60% (integration and uptime are critical).
  • Speed at 30% (they want to migrate this quarter, not next year).
  • Price at 10% (they’ll pay more for confidence).

When vendors are scored against those weights, the “cheapest” option usually falls off the list quickly. That clarity saves months of frustration.

Fit as the fourth dimension

Here’s what the triangle doesn’t cover: partnership fit.

Even if a vendor nails your speed, quality, and price requirements, the relationship can fail if the partnership isn’t right.

  • Do they collaborate like an extension of your team?
  • Do they understand your industry and speak your customer’s language?
  • Do they show up when things go wrong—or do they retreat behind contracts?

Fit doesn’t replace speed, quality, and price. But it often determines whether the engagement delivers long-term value. Leaders will pay more—or wait longer—for a vendor who behaves like a partner instead of a vendor.

Mini case: A pharma company once picked the lowest-cost lab data tool. On paper, it met quality standards and delivered fast. But when a compliance issue hit, the vendor went silent. Six months later, they switched to a more expensive platform that provided proactive audits and hands-on support. Price was lower at first—but the real cost was time, fines, and reputation.

Practical takeaways
  1. Know your anchor. Decide which dimension (speed, quality, or price) is non-negotiable for this project.
  2. Weight the rest. Use a simple scoring model to clarify tradeoffs.
  3. Ask the hard questions. What’s the cost of delay? What’s the downside of failure? What risks are we really buying?
  4. Consider the hidden fourth. Fit matters more than most teams admit.
  5. Own the compromise. Don’t fool yourself into thinking you got all three. Say out loud what you gave up and why.
  6. Revisit priorities. What mattered in your startup stage may shift dramatically at scale.
The bottomline

The triangle cliché isn’t wrong—it’s just incomplete. Vendor decisions aren’t about “pick two.” They’re about knowing your one non-negotiable and compromising intelligently on the rest.

And the truth is, you don’t really buy speed, quality, or price—you buy outcomes. You buy peace of mind. You buy a partner who either helps you move faster, perform better, or spend smarter.

So next time someone throws the triangle at you, don’t just nod. Use it. Name your anchor. Make the tradeoffs explicit. And pick vendors who align with your real priorities.

Because at the end of the day, triangles don’t deliver results. People and partners do.

If you want to learn how we help clients grow sales more efficiently, schedule a strategy call.

Share this post

Related Articles

The Sales Rep of the Future

A Speed, Quality, Price Reality Check

Loyalty Hangs in the Balance