A.Team vs Gun.io
Five structural dimensions where the two platforms differ. Vetting rigor, coordination model, compliance handling, conversion terms, and pool depth by stack. Honest framing for engineering managers evaluating both.
Both run human technical review and both target senior work. Gun.io places one senior engineer with contracts, payroll, and tax compliance handled. A.Team states one rate per builder and scales to a multi-builder team without a second product.
What is A.Team?
Per-builder rate stated on the Service Order, Team Success layer, published conversion fee.
Seven-plus years of professional engineering experience minimum, with the network average sitting between 8 and 12 years. Six-stage vetting including guild peer review on code samples. Acceptance rate isn’t a brand metric; the more useful question is what the median engagement looks like over six months.
Senior builders under your management. A named Team Success contact runs kickoff, checks engagement health, and owns escalation. The model scales linearly to multi-builder teams without a separate product.
- 72 hrsto a curated shortlist
- One rateper builder on the Service Order
- Publishedconversion fee, plannable from day one
Compared with
What is Gun.io?
A senior-focused marketplace with the most rigorous intake among its tier: a live technical interview conducted by a Gun.io Technical Lead, not an automated screen.
Three stages — skills assessment, live technical interview, then a character assessment reviewed by a Gun.io executive — produce roughly a 10% acceptance rate across a US-centric pool. Gun.io publishes that 70% of approved developers have 10+ years of experience. Named clients include Cisco, Amazon, and Tesla.
Gun.io handles contracts, payroll billing, and tax compliance, taking that administrative burden off the client. Fill time runs about 13 days to a matched candidate by third-party accounts, and a two-year non-solicitation period applies to direct hires.
A.Team vs Gun.io, side by side
Both run human technical review and both target senior work. The models separate on what the engagement includes and how it scales past one person.
| Dimension | A.Team | Gun.io |
|---|---|---|
| Vetting | Senior band (7+ years, average 8–12); six-stage vetting including guild peer review | Three stages: skills assessment, live technical interview by a Gun.io Technical Lead, and a character assessment reviewed by an executive; ~10% acceptance |
| Seniority | Senior band by design: 7+ years, network average 8–12 | 70% of approved developers have 10+ years of experience (gun.io) |
| Engagement model | Per-builder under your management, with a named Team Success contact; scales to multi-builder teams without a separate product | Individual senior engineer, with a dedicated success manager coordinating the client-developer relationship; multi-role hiring means separate searches |
| Compliance handling | MSA + per-builder Service Order; Net-15 invoicing; IP assignment from day one | Contracts, payroll billing, and tax compliance handled by Gun.io |
| Pricing | One rate per builder stated on every Service Order | $100–$200+/hr for senior individual contributors by third-party benchmarks1 |
| Conversion & non-solicitation | Published: greater of $20,000 or three months at the monthly rate plus 10 percent | 20% of first-year salary for full-time placement, plus a two-year non-solicitation window on direct hires |
| Pool depth | Senior engineers, AI and data specialists, product managers, and designers, not structured around a small set of dominant stacks | Published stack counts: 3,950 JavaScript, 3,412 React, 3,104 Node.js, 2,820 Python2 |
| Re-match path | Team Success scopes a re-match against the existing engagement context; no trial-period negotiation | — |
| Time to shortlist | Curated shortlist in ~72 hours; builder embedded by Week 2 | ~13 days to a matched candidate (third-party sources) |
- 1Pricing requires contact; no self-serve estimate is published
- 2Third-party reviews note the matching pool thins outside those stacks
Vetting: live interview at intake vs ongoing delivery review
TakeawayBoth have human review. They apply it at different points.
Gun.io: three stages, ending with a character assessment reviewed by a Gun.io executive. The result is roughly a 10% acceptance rate across a US-centric pool.
A.Team: seven-plus years professional engineering experience (average 8-12), through six-stage vetting including guild peer review, with builders assessed on delivery history in comparable engagements.
Coordination: success manager vs Team Success contact
TakeawayBoth sit outside the delivery path. Ask what each escalates and to whom.
Gun.io: the model is built around one senior individual contributor with support around the relationship. Assembling a team means multiple separate searches.
A.Team: senior builders under your management with a named Team Success contact. The model scales linearly to multi-builder teams without a separate product.
Compliance: full administrative handling vs standard MSA structure
TakeawayIf payroll and classification are the blocker, that’s a real Gun.io advantage.
Gun.io: full-service administrative handling is a genuine differentiator for procurement teams with strict contractor-classification requirements.
A.Team: MSA plus per-builder Service Order, Net-15 invoicing, work-for-hire language in every Service Order. For regulated industries, confirm the specific compliance structure with either vendor.
Conversion: two-year non-solicitation vs published formula
TakeawayIf direct hire is a likely endpoint, price the window into the evaluation.
Gun.io: if direct hire isn’t a likely endpoint, the clause is irrelevant. If it is, price the opportunity cost into the comparison before signing.
A.Team: greater of $20,000 or three months at the monthly rate plus 10 percent. Same structure across every engagement, plannable from day one.
Pool: dominant stacks vs multi-role composition
TakeawayAsk for bench depth at your exact stack, not the headline count.
Gun.io: for a mainstream senior engineering role, the bench is deep and the published counts make it checkable.
A.Team: the network includes AI engineers, data scientists, and product designers alongside core engineering roles, so common senior combinations don’t hit a supply constraint.
The honest trade-offs
A.Team
Pros
- One rate per builder stated on every Service Order; no hidden tiers or success fees
- Named Team Success contact runs kickoff, checks engagement health, owns escalation
- Published conversion fee, plannable from day one
- Scales linearly to multi-builder teams without a separate product
Cons
- No money-back trial period; fit issues route through Team Success instead
- No acceptance-rate headline number, if your buying process needs that signal
- No public rate card; rates are stated per builder on the Service Order
- Payroll and tax compliance aren’t absorbed by the platform the way Gun.io absorbs them
Gun.io
Pros
- A live technical interview by a Gun.io Technical Lead, not an automated screen
- 70% of approved developers have 10+ years of experience, published and specific
- Contracts, payroll billing, and tax compliance handled by the platform
- US-centric pool depth, useful when North American overlap matters on a single placement
Cons
- A two-year non-solicitation window on direct hires
- Individual placement only; multi-role hiring means separate searches
- Pool depth thins outside JavaScript, React, Node.js, and Python
- No self-serve pricing estimate; rates require contact
Which one is right for you?
The two serve different engagement shapes. Route by what the work needs.
Embed a senior builder in about two weeks, with a Team Success contact from kickoff
A.Team — Curated shortlist in 72 hours; you interview, you select.
Scale from one builder to a multi-builder team without switching products
A.Team — The Team Success layer scales with the team.
Procurement needs one rate per builder and a plannable conversion fee
A.Team — Per-builder rate on every Service Order; published conversion formula. Compare it against any Gun.io quote line by line.
Place one senior engineer with contracts, payroll, and tax compliance handled
Gun.io — When the role is high-stakes and defined, the stack is mainstream, and administrative handling is what your procurement team most needs.
The bottom line
Gun.io has the most rigorous intake in its tier. The live technical interview is conducted by a senior engineer on Gun.io’s team rather than an automated screen, the character assessment is reviewed by an executive, and the published 70%-with-10-plus-years figure is specific enough to check. Contracts, payroll billing, and tax compliance are handled as part of the standard engagement, which is a real advantage when contractor classification is the procurement blocker.
The structural deltas are scope and terms. Gun.io places individual senior engineers, so a multi-role team means separate searches, and pool depth thins outside the dominant stacks. A.Team states one rate per builder on the Service Order, scales to multi-builder teams without a separate product, and publishes its conversion fee rather than pairing placement fees with a two-year non-solicitation window.
Compare for your specific engagement.
Tell us the role, the timezone, the rate band, and the engagement shape. We'll send a curated shortlist within 72 hours so you can compare against any Gun.io match on the dimensions that matter to your team.
Individual contractors vs managed teams
What changes when the unit of work goes from one contractor to a team: coordination, accountability, commercial structure, and the failure modes of each model.
Contractor vs FTE total cost of ownership
Full TCO breakdown across hiring models. Loaded FTE costs, contractor markup transparency, conversion fees, the hidden costs most comparisons miss.
Common questions about A.Team vs Gun.io
Gun.io’s live technical interview is conducted by a Gun.io Technical Lead before the developer is added to the platform. A.Team’s six-stage vetting includes guild peer review on code samples, and builders are assessed against delivery history in comparable engagements on an ongoing basis. Gun.io’s review concentrates at intake; A.Team’s continues against real delivery outcomes. Downstream, Gun.io places a senior individual contributor while A.Team’s model scales to a multi-builder team without a separate product.
Gun.io’s standard contracts include a two-year window during which clients can’t hire a Gun.io developer directly without triggering a conversion fee. If you’re evaluating a senior engineer for potential full-time conversion, that clause is a meaningful consideration. A.Team’s conversion fee is published — the greater of $20,000 or three months at the monthly rate plus 10 percent — and the structure is the same on every engagement.
Gun.io handles contracts, payroll billing, and tax compliance as part of the standard engagement. A.Team contracts through an MSA plus a per-builder Service Order, with Net-15 invoicing and IP assignment from day one. For regulated industries or procurement teams with strict contractor-classification requirements, confirm the specific compliance structure with either vendor before signing.
Third-party benchmarks put Gun.io senior engineers at $100–$200+/hr, with full-time placement at 20% of first-year salary; pricing requires contact rather than a self-serve estimate. A.Team states one rate per builder on the Service Order. Build both against the same senior rate band, and price the two-year non-solicitation window if direct hire is a possible endpoint.
Gun.io publishes stack-specific counts: 3,950 JavaScript developers, 3,412 React, 3,104 Node.js, 2,820 Python. Outside those — specialized ML frameworks, embedded systems, domain-specific platforms — third-party reviews note the matching pool thins. A.Team’s network includes AI engineers, data scientists, and product designers alongside core engineering roles and isn’t structured around a small set of dominant stacks.
Pick Gun.io when you need a single senior engineer for a high-stakes defined role, the stack sits in its deep bench, and you want contracts, payroll, and tax compliance absorbed by the platform. Pick A.Team when the engagement needs more than one builder, when the profile sits outside the dominant stacks, or when you want one stated rate per builder and a published conversion fee instead of a two-year non-solicitation window.