"Rip and Replace" looks sexier every day. I only recommend build when you can’t buy what you need. But many SaaS/AI tools have SCAM pricing, so there's probably ROI in 1:1 cloning now because of all the new good and low cost data/dev tools and LLMs. Have a client paying $1,500/mo for a tool that’s buggy and doesn’t do what they need. With the cost savings, plus the benefits of it doing what they need (and actually working), there’s a good case for build because there’s a growth story too. I wouldn’t Rip and Replace to save $100/mo. I also wouldn't have a nontechnical person vibe code it because then you end up in maintenance hell. But getting AI-native engineers to build something that drives revenue growth, not just cost savings compared to the scam, seems a lot more practical lately. Here's how we'll replace our client's $1,500/mo subscription after we get the green light: > Have them record Looms while they use the product > Say what they like and don't like > Run discovery interviews and process mapping to understand the problem they need to solve and the outcomes they want to achieve > Dump all that context into a coding agent to make a Product Requirements Document (PRD) > Show client prototype with example output and get sign off > Build. The objection I hear about builds is “but maintenance”. Valid, but if you if done in an AI-native way and by actual engineers, it shouldn’t be too big of a lift. More importantly, as long as the build is pointed at a valuable use case, it should be worth it