CCTV System Cost Comparison: Two Quotes, One Building, One Bill of Materials

The case: one list, two quotes

A hotel project in Africa went to two suppliers, and both quotes are in front of us. Ours, dated 22 August 2026 on EXW terms, listed 221 cameras, 20 switches, 4 recorders, 19 floor cabinets and the full CAT6 and fibre run. The tier-one quote listed 145 cameras, a platform server with 147 licences and a far larger storage build, but no switches, no cabinets and no cabling. Two numbers from different scopes are not a comparison on their own, so what we publish is the two configurations side by side rather than the two totals.

We are not naming the other manufacturer, and we are not suggesting anything about its equipment. The point of this page is not who quoted what. It is why two prices for one list can sit that far apart, and what you should do with that knowledge when you are holding a quote of your own. The first reaction to a gap like this is usually “the cheap one must be worse”. Sometimes that is true. Usually it is not, and the four explanations below are the reason.

A project quote comparison we can share on request — configuration and date in the appendix — is one project, not a survey, and we present it as one project. What travels to your building is the method, not the number.

One rule governs everything on this page: we publish our own specifications and pricing; we do not publish claims about other manufacturers’ products that we cannot document. So there are no defect stories here, no anonymous failure rates and no screenshots of anyone else’s interface — only our specification, our price, and the structure of the gap.

A number on a page proves nothing. Ask for the appendix, read it against the quotes you hold, and use the verification method at the end of this page on us first.

The four sources of the difference

Almost every large gap between two quotes for the same list comes from the same four places. Understanding them turns a suspicious number into a checklist.

• Brand premium is not a scandal. It is what a name is worth in a market, and it buys real things: a global service organisation, documented roadmaps, a purchasing department that will approve it without questions. The test is whether those things are in your requirement. If they are not, you are paying for them anyway.
• Agent layers are the most common source of a gap, and the hardest to see, because each entity is legitimate and each margin is small. But four layers of 15 per cent is not small by the time it reaches your site, and on a big list it compounds with every item.
• System binding is where a comparison usually stops being like for like without anyone noticing. A controller, a licence or a matched drive does not look expensive on its own line; across a building it can be a meaningful part of the total, and it is the part you can never buy from anyone else.
• Scope definition is the one that catches buyers out. Two quotes described differently are two different jobs. Align them before you compare totals, and put the exclusions in writing on both sides. A wired design against a wireless one, or a colour specification against an infrared one, is not two prices for one system — it is two different systems, and comparing the totals tells you nothing until the designs match.

What the two-column comparison looks like

The appendix that accompanies our quote is a table, one row per line item, two price columns side by side, with the same currency and the date both quotes were issued at the top. Lines are grouped in the order the system is built: cameras by position, PoE switching, cabling and accessories, recorders and drives, display and client, then service and warranty.

It carries three extra columns that matter more than the prices. The first marks whether a line is like for like or a different specification, so a cheaper camera is visible as a cheaper specification rather than a cheaper camera. The second marks scope: who supplies it, who installs it, whether it is inside the price or excluded. The third is a note column for anything that needs a sentence — a substitution, a model change, a difference in warranty term.

The equipment side of that list is reproduced below, line by line, because it is the part that explains the difference. Per-line prices stay in the appendix itself: ask for it, and read it against the two quotes you already hold. We identify the other quote by configuration and date rather than by name, because the analysis does not need it.

If you would rather run the exercise on your own project, send us the bill of materials and we will return the two-column version with our price in the second column and the scope differences marked.

The equipment list, line by line

This is the equipment side of the case, taken from the two quotes themselves. Quantities are as each quote listed them; where a line says not listed, that quote did not carry it. Per-line prices stay in the appendix rather than on this page.

• Read the two columns against each other before the totals. The camera count differs by 76 units, and the cabling, cabinets, optics and the platform licence line appear in one column only — which is why the two totals are not a like-for-like ratio.
• Every figure above traces to a document: the proforma invoice behind our column, dated 2026-08-22, and the other quote as issued. Ask for both and read them against the buildings they were written for.

How to verify our quote, and theirs

This method works in both directions, and we expect it to be used on us. Send the same list to both suppliers, in the same structure, and insist on the same five answers: minimum illumination in colour mode, channel count against camera count, drive bay count and total capacity against retention days, exactly what the labour scope excludes, and the warranty term and what it covers.

Then do the physical checks. Ask what the PoE wattage total is, and what it is against the cameras quoted, because undersized switching is the most common hidden cost in a commercial system. Ask how many metres of cable are in the quote and whether the run lengths were walked or assumed. Ask who pays the freight, who pays the return freight on a failed unit, and how long a replacement takes to arrive. Ask how long the price holds, because a quote that expires in thirty days in a rising market is not the price you will pay.

Finally, ask for sample footage from a comparable scene, and take it. If a supplier cannot show you what the camera does at night on a site like yours, the specification is the only thing you are buying, and the specification is the easiest part of a system to write favourably.

How to use this in a decision

Do not buy the row; buy the outcome. What you are actually purchasing is a working system that identifies what happens on your site for the next five to seven years, and that includes the parts nobody quotes as a headline: the cable in the wall, the drives that will be replaced once, the spare camera for the unit that fails in year three, and the time your team spends learning a platform.

Work out the cost of the outcome over the life of the system and compare that instead of the sticker. Three questions usually sort it out. What does the system have to identify, and does each quote deliver that? What will it cost to keep running — storage growth, spares, support, renewals? And what happens on the day a camera fails: who ships, who pays, how long is the site blind?

Where the difference is genuine and the specifications match, the saving is a budget you can redirect to the parts that change outcomes: more PoE headroom, longer retention, better mounts, an enclosure where the camera is reachable, or a display in the guard room instead of a monitor in the cupboard. That is the useful version of a cost comparison: not cheaper for its own sake, but more system for the same money — or the same system for a number you can defend to whoever signs the budget.

Where we would tell you not to buy from us

A cost comparison that only argues one way is advertising. These are the cases where we say so before a quote is issued:

• Sites that require hazardous-area certification. Our range does not provide it, and no price advantage makes up for a document you cannot supply.
• Sites whose whole operation runs inside another platform’s ecosystem — licences, integrations, reports and workflows built around it. A cheaper bill of materials does not compensate for rebuilding an operation that already works.
• Estate-wide portfolios that require an in-country service company with a contractual response time. We support projects remotely, with local contractors doing the physical work, and if your tender requires more than that, we are not the right supplier for it.
• Buyers who need an OEM-branded mobile app for their own customers. Logo placement covers the carton, the case, the channel display page and the boot screen; the client application keeps its own name.
• Projects where the requirement is genuinely a name — for a landlord, a lender or an insurer whose approval process depends on it. That is a real requirement, and it is not one we can quote around.