For Shopify teams who have been told a rebuild will fix conversion
We build custom Shopify and Shopify Plus stores. We will not sell you one until we know the platform is what is holding you back. A rebuild is the most expensive possible way to discover the constraint was somewhere else.
Some of it certainly is. The question is which part, and whether the blocked part is the part costing you money. Those are rarely the same list.
Small merchandising edits need a developer, so testing slows to whatever the queue allows.
Template rigidity means each new layout is custom work, and the cost of trying something is higher than the value of learning it.
Load time is bad enough that improvements elsewhere get absorbed before they show up in revenue.
A stack of overlapping apps, each solving one thing, collectively slowing everything and conflicting at checkout.
The case for rebuilding is that things are hard. That is a real cost, but it is not yet a number.
The costly assumption
Most agencies will quote you a rebuild, because a rebuild is the largest thing they can sell and the request is already in your mouth.
Sometimes it is right. Architecture genuinely blocks optimization, template rigidity genuinely caps testing, and no amount of careful work inside the current build will move the number. When that is true, rebuilding is the only honest answer.
But it has to be diagnosed, not assumed. A rebuild that fixes the wrong constraint costs you the build, the migration risk, and the quarter it took, and leaves the actual leak exactly where it was.
So we diagnose first. Every time, including when you arrive certain.
The technical diagnostic
That last line is the one that decides. A constraint that is annoying and a constraint that is expensive are different problems, and only one of them justifies an architecture project.
Four honest outcomes
The most common outcome. The constraint is inside the current build and can be fixed without an architecture project. Usually a Profit Sprint.
Prescribed when template rigidity, speed debt or platform limits are demonstrably capping revenue and the forecast supports the investment. This is an Infrastructure Build. It is prescribed after diagnosis, never sold from this page.
When you are on another platform and the move is justified by what the diagnosis finds, not by the fact that we build on Shopify.
When your team handles implementation and what you need is the diagnosis and the testing strategy, not our developers.
Custom theme architecture built so your team can ship merchandising and layout changes without a developer in the loop. The point is not the build. It is what testing costs afterwards.
Speed and Core Web Vitals work, app stack rationalisation, and cleaning up whatever is quietly slowing the path to checkout.
Custom apps and integrations where Shopify does not do the thing your business needs, built to be maintained rather than to impress.
Checkout mechanics, subscription flows, and the parts of the buying path that are expensive to get wrong and invisible when they are right.
Ongoing maintenance, security, and the unglamorous work that stops a good build degrading into a stack of workarounds.
If migration is the answer
A replatform is mostly risk management. These are the things that quietly cost revenue when a migration is run by people optimising for launch date:
We plan a migration backwards from measurement. If the new store cannot be compared to the old one, nobody can tell you whether it worked, and you will have spent the money to find out nothing.
The evidence
Every result below names the change we made, the sample it was measured across, and the window it was measured over. Where we do not have a published result yet, we say that instead of filling the gap.
The technical work exists to make changes like these possible and cheap to test.
| Measure | Value |
|---|---|
| Conversion rate | +20% |
| Revenue per visitor | +3% |
| Window | 8 days |
| Sessions | 865,909 |
| Confidence | 90% |
Largest session sample in our test history. Conversion rate was the primary metric. Revenue per visitor rose 3%, which did not clear the decision threshold on its own.
| Measure | Value |
|---|---|
| Projected monthly contribution | $175K |
| Window | 5 days |
| Sessions | 73,873 |
| Confidence | 90% |
Projected from a 5-day window. Short-window directional projection, not yet validated across a complete trading cycle.
| Measure | Value |
|---|---|
| Projected monthly contribution | $71K |
| Window | 30 days |
| Sessions | 71,833 |
| Confidence | 90% |
Our longest test window. When the window matters more than the number, this is the one to read.
Projected monthly contribution is extrapolated from the test window. It is not revenue banked, and we will not present it as though it were.
Results are specific to the cited experiments. Not every test wins, and projected contribution depends on the measurement window and store economics.
Six of the nine leaks VASTA inspects do not yet have a published result behind them. Those are described as process, not proof, until a proof pack exists. How we measure
"One of the best services we've ever had"
The VASTA agreement
And no rebuild we cannot justify with what the diagnosis found.
Also a fit. On another platform? You can still qualify, whether you are weighing a move to Shopify or keeping your platform and using us for diagnosis and strategy.
Share your store and what is slowing you down. If the platform is the constraint, we will show you why. If it is not, you should know that before signing a build.