Decision Matrix
Managed GCC vs BOT vs Direct Entity
Three engagement models, three different risk profiles, three different cost curves. The right choice depends on your headcount target, time horizon, control appetite and compliance posture. Here is the head to head matrix.
| Dimension | Managed GCC | Build Operate Transfer | Direct Entity |
|---|---|---|---|
| Go live speed | 30 to 60 days | 60 to 120 days | 6 to 9 months |
| Upfront capex | Near zero | Low (partner funded) | USD 800K to 3M |
| You own people from day 1 | Yes | Yes (transferred at exit) | Yes |
| You own entity from day 1 | No (partner entity) | No, until transfer | Yes |
| Control over culture and roadmap | High | High | Highest |
| Exit flexibility | 30 to 90 day notice | Pre agreed multiple at transfer | Wind down 9 to 18 months |
| Best headcount range | 50 to 250 FTEs | 150 to 500 FTEs | 250+ FTEs |
| Total cost of ownership (Year 5) | Highest | Optimal | Lowest at scale |
| Compliance and regulatory risk | Partner absorbs | Partner absorbs then transfers | You absorb |
| Recommended for | Pilots, midmarket, first entry | Validated functions ready to scale | Mature, scaled captives |
Managed GCC
Fastest, lowest risk, highest ongoing cost.
Companies under 250 FTEs in India, or running a 12 to 24 month pilot before deciding on a permanent structure.
Build Operate Transfer
Best long term economics for scaled captives.
Companies confident of scaling beyond 250 FTEs in 24 to 36 months, who want a clean entity at the end without owning entity risk during build.
Direct Entity
Maximum control, highest steady state efficiency.
Companies with a dedicated India MD on day one, clear 500+ FTE roadmap, and appetite for entity, compliance and real estate risk.
Pick the right model for your GCC
We model all three options against your headcount path, function mix, control appetite and exit horizon. Decision in one business day.