React

Both are credible over that horizon; the deciding factors are organisational. React leaves architecture to the team, which suits a product group that wants to own its choices and evolve them piece by piece. Angular decides routing, forms, dependency injection and structure for you, which suits organisations running many teams over one standard, and two Angular codebases resemble each other far more than two React codebases do.

React's risk is drift: with every layer chosen, discipline is needed to stop five ways of doing one thing. Angular's risk is coupling to the framework's own timetable of change. We build and maintain both, and the recommendation follows how your organisation makes decisions.

Refactor, almost always. Class components still run on current React, so nothing forces a rewrite, and hooks conversion proceeds component by component inside normal feature work. We sequence by touch frequency: components that change weekly convert early, stable ones can wait indefinitely.

A rewrite only enters the conversation when routing, data flow and build tooling are being replaced at the same time, and even then it runs incrementally, new beside old, until the last old route retires.

Very capably, with one React-specific failure mode. The public React corpus is the largest of any front-end technology, so agents produce components, tests and styling that mostly work first pass. The catch is that the corpus spans every era of the library at once, class components, hooks, Server Components, and an agent's default output can be idiomatic for the wrong one: deprecated lifecycle patterns in a hooks codebase, client-side fetching where a server component was wanted.

The counter is making the codebase declare its own idiom: lint rules that ban the legacy patterns, current exemplar components for the tooling to imitate, and review that treats era drift as a defect like any other.

Give the tooling boundaries and a signal. Typed props turn component contracts into machine-checkable facts, React Testing Library suites return behavioural feedback per component, and small colocated components mean a change fits inside the context an agent actually reads. The TypeScript page covers the compile-time half of this in more depth.

The codebases that resist AI assistance are the ones that resist new engineers: props drilled through many layers, state living in implicit context, five-hundred-line components. Fixing those pays for itself whatever the tooling.

For product work, one or two React engineers embedded in your existing team is the usual starting shape, widening to a full-stack TypeScript group when the brief covers the API layer as well. Design-system work adds an engineer with component-library and accessibility depth.

Engagements start at one engineer and run for three, six, nine or twelve months, fixed up front, with the team keeping your working day.

As a monthly rate for the team, or as a fixed cost where the brief is a defined first outcome such as a design system or a front-end rebuild. We do not publish rate figures because the seniority mix moves them; the People pages describe both models. Shortlists usually arrive within 48 hours of a brief, so pricing is discussed against named engineers rather than a generic profile.