Custom vs Pre-Built Components
When building an application, one of the first crossroads many teams encounter is deciding whether to rely on pre-built components or to design their own from scratch. At first glance, it might seem like a purely technical choice, but in reality, it’s deeply tied to the vision of the product, the dynamics of the team, and even the story you want your app to tell.
Custom components can feel like hand-tailored suits: they fit perfectly, carry your brand’s personality, and give you complete control over how users interact with your product. They can evolve as your application grows, scaling without the constraints of an external framework. The trade-off, of course, is the investment—both in time and in resources. Crafting a design system from the ground up means your team owns not just the creativity, but also the maintenance. Every bug, every update, every optimization lands on your shoulders.
Pre-built components, on the other hand, are like ready-to-wear essentials. They’re reliable, widely tested, and designed to make development faster. They come with built-in consistency, which can be invaluable for teams that need to move quickly and maintain a unified interface without reinventing the wheel. But they also come with limitations: customization can feel like bending something not meant to bend, and your product can risk looking a bit like everything else out there. Moreover, you tie a part of your project’s future to the update cycles of an external library—something you can’t fully control.
From my own experience, I’ve worked with both approaches in different contexts. In early-stage projects, I often leaned on pre-built libraries to move fast, validate ideas, and get a working product in front of users. It allowed me to test assumptions quickly without sinking too much time into details that might change later.
I remember one project in particular where we were racing against time to launch an MVP. Using a pre-built component library shaved off weeks of work and gave us something polished enough to demo. But a few months later, as we started adding more unique features, we hit a wall: the library just didn’t support the level of customization we needed. Every “hack” we applied to bend it closer to our vision ended up creating technical debt that slowed us down.
On another occasion, while working on a mature product, we made the opposite choice: building our own design system from scratch. It took longer—much longer than anticipated—but the result was a consistent, brand-driven experience that scaled elegantly as the product grew. Even years later, that foundation proved valuable, allowing us to evolve the product without constantly fighting against someone else’s constraints.
In the end, what worked best for the team was a hybrid path: moving quickly with pre-built components at the start, then gradually introducing custom ones as the product matured. That balance allowed me to validate ideas fast while still carving out a unique identity over time.
Ultimately, the decision isn’t just about code—it’s about priorities. Do you need to reach the market quickly and prove your concept? Or is your main objective to craft an experience that feels unmistakably yours, even if it takes longer to build?
There’s no universal answer, but understanding the trade-offs helps. Like most things in product design, it comes down to balance—knowing when to rely on what’s already available, and when it’s worth creating something truly your own.
