Launching a new website or feature always brings the same question: when is it ready?

Is something truly “done” when it still contains bugs? Can a deliverable be considered complete if it only meets part of the requirements? And, perhaps more importantly, when is it better to ship what you have rather than wait for something more polished?

Let’s explore the tension between speed and quality—and how to find the balance that makes sense for your business.

Bug-Free Code? No Such Thing.

Here’s the hard truth: bug-free code doesn’t exist.

Every project contains defects—some known, some waiting to be discovered. Testing, code reviews, and QA reduce risk, but they can’t eliminate it. You can approach zero defects, but you’ll never reach absolute perfection.

If we think about bugs as the inverse of completeness, then no software is ever truly “complete.” It only gets closer and closer to fulfilling all stated and unstated requirements. Each bug fixed, each refinement added, nudges the product further along that path—but the finish line is unattainable.

Launching Nothing

At the other extreme, you could launch with nothing at all. A blank page is still a webpage.

That sounds absurd—but it highlights the spectrum. On one end, you have “launching nothing” (fast, but worthless). On the other, you have the pursuit of perfection (slow, and ultimately impossible). Every real decision falls somewhere in between.

Speed vs. Quality

You’ve probably heard the phrase: good, fast, or cheap—pick two.

But if you’re working with an agency that bills hourly, fast and cheap are often the same thing. That leaves us with a simpler tension: speed vs. quality.

So what is quality in practice? It isn’t just “fewer bugs.” Quality shows up in:

• Conversion rate: A polished site instills trust and removes friction for customers.
• Usability: Clean, intuitive features reduce frustration and support revenue growth.
• Maintainability: A site you can manage without constant developer intervention saves time and money.
• Brand trust: Users subconsciously equate a buggy site with a less credible business.

Quality, in short, isn’t just about software—it’s about business outcomes.

The Line We Draw

This brings us to the core question: when are you comfortable launching?

• Launching sooner may mean accepting more bugs, lower conversion rates, and a shakier user experience.
• Launching later usually means a higher-quality product, but it also delays revenue and feedback.

Most project managers (under pressure to hit deadlines) lean toward the fastest acceptable option. Clients, meanwhile, may not always see the hidden risks: bugs that erode customer trust, missing admin tools that make site management painful, or technical debt that inflates long-term costs.

The challenge is recognizing that the “minimum viable” version isn’t always the same as the “minimum sustainable” version.

The Hidden Costs of Choosing Speed over Quality

Speed can be valuable—you get to market sooner, collect feedback earlier, and learn faster. But chasing speed at the expense of quality comes with hidden costs:

• Customer trust: First impressions stick. A buggy or clumsy experience can be hard to recover from.
• Increased costs: Every bug you accept today may cost 5–10x more to fix later.
• Team morale: A culture of rushing leads to constant firefighting, which can impact morale and burn out your team.

Choosing speed over quality is defined as technical debt.

Like financial debt, technical debt isn’t always bad. It can give you the speed you need in the short term, but it’s borrowed time. Eventually, it must be repaid. That repayment comes in one of two forms:

• Refactoring and repair — fixing rushed code later, at a higher cost, or
• Living with limitations — reduced performance, fragile systems, and a less polished user experience.

The difference between healthy debt and destructive debt is awareness. Taking on debt intentionally, with a plan to pay it down, can be a smart move. Ignoring it, on the other hand, allows it to compound until it undermines user trust and slows down future development.

Are we there yet?

I get asked all the time: “When can we launch?” The truth is—that choice isn’t up to me. It’s up to you and your determination of what’s acceptable for your business, your users, and your goals. My job is to help you understand the tradeoffs so you can make that decision with clarity and confidence.

No one can dictate the “right” balance between speed and quality—it depends on context, goals, and risk tolerance.

For some features, you may accept a rough first version and improve it later. For others—checkout flows, payment integrations, security-related functionality—you’ll demand a high level of confidence before launch.

The key is making that decision intentionally rather than by default. Instead of asking “Is it perfect?” (it never will be), ask:

• Is it good enough to deliver value to users?
• Are the known issues acceptable risks?
• Does launching now set us up for learning, growth, and long-term success?

That’s when “good” becomes good enough.