“You own the code” shows up in almost every proposal. It does not mean the same thing twice.
Sometimes it means: the repo lives in your GitHub from day one and you hold admin. Sometimes: you licence the software, you run it, and someone else stays accountable when Monday fails. Sometimes: a PDF about IP assignment while the repo stays on the vendor’s account and nobody in your company can ship a fix.
The question before you sign is not “who owns the IP in the abstract?”. It is: who has admin, who answers when it breaks, and what do you take if the relationship ends?
This page is not the offer. It is the buying criterion. The custom software offer (tools: /en/software/internal-tools). If the blocker is the number, the public table is how much custom software costs in 2026.
Three models (no theatre)
1. Full assignment.
The repo is yours. You (or whoever you hire next) maintain, deploy and answer when it breaks. The studio delivers and leaves — or bills maintenance separately. It fits when you have an internal tech team (real React/Node capacity, not a wishlist) and you want the asset on the books as something you can touch without asking permission.
Build price is usually higher than a licence-plus-accountability model, because the studio stops carrying the operational risk. If you close assignment and nobody can deploy, you did not buy independence. You bought a zip and a debt.
2. Use licence + studio accountability.
You run the software. The studio keeps the code and stays responsible for it working. Build price is often a fraction of a “full agency assignment” quote, because someone remains on the other end when Monday does not start.
This is not “renting a generic SaaS”. It is software built for your workflow, with a contract that says what the licence covers and what happens if the studio disappears. Ask: escrow, exportable data, repo access under clear conditions. If there is no written answer, it is not a model. It is hope.
3. Someone else’s platform with your brand.
Not custom software. Another vendor’s product in your skin. Code is not the issue — their ceiling is. If they change the plan, the API or the price, your “tool” moves with them.
If you cannot name which of the three you are in, you are not buying the same thing. Comparing a licence fixed price with a full-assignment fixed price as if they were one product is the most expensive mistake at the table.
How this shows up in a Barcelona SME
In a lot of Spanish SMEs — founder-led desks in Barcelona and the metro area — there is no IT department. There is a founder still signing quotes, someone in admin keeping the spreadsheet that “almost works”, and a partner (tax firm, ERP house, the a3-style stack next door) quoting the next module when Excel stops.
At that table, “you own the code” sounds like control. Control without admin, without a pipeline and without anyone who can read a log is not control. It is a PDF. If the partner quotes full assignment and the number looks like a big-studio build, ask what month two includes: who patches, who deploys, who pays when the bank API changes?
Wallion talks to that profile often: one concrete flow (not “digitise the company”), fixed price, and an explicit question — do you need the repo in your org, or do you need someone accountable for it running? No invented clients or volumes here. The pattern is the table, not a case study.
If you already have three developers who live in React and Node, and you want the asset on the books so you can iterate without a licence, full assignment is usually the right buy — even if the build number is higher. If you do not have that team and the “asset” will sit in a repo nobody opens, you are paying for assignment as insurance you cannot use.
Failure modes (ones you have seen, or will)
Repo on the vendor’s account.
You sign. The code is “yours” in the contract. The day you want an export, someone has to invite you. If that person is out, you wait. Admin is not “we’ll pass it when you ask”.
“Assignment” PDF, no admin.
Paper assignment does not deploy. Without admin on the repo, secrets and hosting, assignment is a headline. Ask who has admin on the day of the first milestone — not on the day legal closes.
The studio disappears.
Any model can die. The difference is what they left in writing: is there source-code escrow, is it executed or only “available if you ask”, do data leave without a favour, is there a runbook or only a zip?
Mixing licence and assignment in one sentence.
“We assign the code and there is also a monthly licence” without separating what is what. If the price assumes one thing and the PDF says the other, the fight shows up in month twelve, not month one. One sentence, one model. If there are two, two prices.
Escrow that is never executed.
“Escrow available” in the proposal and no deposit, no third party, no release conditions. Unexecuted escrow is not escrow. Ask for the mechanism, not the adjective.
None of these are theoretical. They are the difference between an asset and a leash.
What Wallion does (and when not to buy it)
Wallion builds custom software at a fixed price. Under the usual model the studio keeps the operational code and stays accountable for it running — as set in the project contract, not as a slogan on this page: that is why one internal tool / one flow builds at a fraction of a full-assignment agency quote, and why a monthly licence exists. Flow offer: internal tools.
The model in one line: the studio usually keeps the operational code, you licence the use, Wallion stays accountable for it starting as written in the contract, and data is exportable as signed. Code ownership and any escrow are set in the project contract, not on this website. Ask for the mechanism on the call — not the slogan.
That is not “better” in the abstract. It is a model. It fits when:
- You do not have an internal team that can keep React/Node in production.
- You want a live flow (internal tool, bridge, panel) and someone on the other side of the ticket.
- You prefer a closed build number plus licence over a high assignment fixed price that nobody then operates.
Do not buy Wallion’s model when:
- You already have React/Node capacity and you want the repo in your org from day one, with your admin, so you can iterate without a licence. Then ask for full assignment (or a different shape of engagement): scope and price change.
- What you need is a standard SaaS product with your brand on it. That is model 3, not custom.
- You want “we own the code” as marketing copy and you also refuse to pay for either assignment or a licence with accountability. That is not a model. That is a wish.
If on the call you say “we need full assignment”, say it in the first conversation. It does not hide in the FAQ.
Public prices (Option D — no invented figures)
Only the numbers that live on the site:
- Diagnosis — €1,900. One workflow audit, prototype, fixed build quote. If you proceed, the Diagnosis is credited against the build.
- Build — €6,900–14,900. One internal tool: one flow, after Diagnosis. Not the price of a large app, an MVP or staffing — those are a written fixed price, not that band.
- Licence — from €390/month. Hosting, security updates, regulatory and API changes, a ceiling of small-change hours, business-hours support — as published on the offer.
Apps, MVPs and staffing: same model of scope + closed number, different figure, in writing. This page does not invent tariffs. Table and nuance: how much custom software costs in 2026.
Decision checklist (before you sign)
Tick each point. If any stays blank, do not sign “you own the code”.
- Which model are we in: full assignment, licence + accountability, or a third-party platform?
- Where does the repo live the day we pay the first milestone?
- Who has admin (repo, secrets, hosting) that same day?
- If we stop the relationship, what do we take: code, data, both, neither?
- Is source-code escrow in the contract — and is it executed or only promised?
- Are data exportable without asking a favour?
- Does the price assume assignment or a licence? Does one sentence mix both?
- Who answers on Monday if it does not start — us or the studio?
- If we have no React/Node team, does full assignment leave us operational or stranded?
- If we buy licence + accountability, what does the month include, and what is a big change with a new fixed quote?
Without those answers, “you own the code” is marketing.
Questions buyers actually ask
If Wallion keeps the code, am I locked in?
You are bound to the contract, not to a mystery. Data exportable as signed. Escrow only if the contract says so and is executed. Ask for the mechanism on the call, not the slogan.
Why don’t I buy the code outright?
Because under the usual licence-plus-accountability model the build price is a fraction of what a full agency assignment usually costs: the studio keeps the operational code and the responsibility for it running as written in the contract. If you want the asset in your org and you have people who can operate it, ask for assignment — the number changes.
What does the licence from €390/month include?
What the offer publishes: hosting, security, regulatory and API changes, a ceiling of small changes, business-hours support. Anything that must never go down runs on managed third-party services. Bigger changes: a fixed quote in days, not an endless renegotiation.
Is the €1,900 Diagnosis lost if we don’t proceed?
If you proceed, it is credited against the build. If you don’t, you paid for a diagnosis with a prototype and a written fixed quote — not an empty deck. It is not a lead magnet.
Does the €6,900–14,900 band cover an app or an MVP?
No. That band is one internal tool / one flow after Diagnosis. Apps, MVPs and staffing: written fixed price, not that table.
Can we have the repo in our org and a licence at the same time?
Do not mix models in one sentence. If the repo is yours with your admin and assignment, that is assignment. If Wallion keeps the code and you licence use, that is the licence model. Pick one. Price follows the model.
What if the studio disappears?
That is why escrow and exportable data are discussed in the contract — not in a marketing PDF. Code ownership and any escrow are set in the project contract, not on this website. “Escrow available” without execution does not count: ask how it is deposited and when it is released.
Do Wallion Mobility, Glowapp or Nummo belong here?
No. They are not Wallion products of this service. This page is about code ownership in the studio’s custom software — not those brands.
What this page is not
Not the offer. The offer is /en/software (internal tools).
It does not invent tariffs. Public prices live on the site — see how much custom software costs in 2026.
It does not promise ownership or escrow on the website: Code ownership and any escrow are set in the project contract, not on this website.
It does not treat Mobility, Glowapp or Nummo as Wallion products.
It is not a ranking of “best software studios in Spain”.
Thirty minutes
If code ownership is the blocker, settle it in the first conversation — model, admin, escrow, price. Book a 30-minute call.