The dominant factor is never the choice of framework — it remains how much is still undecided. Every open question in the specification turns into a contingency inside the number you receive. A vendor that has no visibility into what happens on the unhappy path has to assume a pessimistic case. Putting two weeks into requirements work often reduces the final cost by far more than negotiating the rate.
Integrations remain the next major multiplier. A screen that writes to your own database is low risk; the same feature talking to a payment provider and kubernetes web development company a CRM is not. The cost lives in the other system: rate limits and sandbox access, long certification processes, data that does not match your model. Ask each bidder to break integrations out as separate items, since that is where the numbers slip.
Non-functional requirements silently change the budget. A tool used by twenty people costs far less than the same feature set serving a hundred thousand users. Compliance work, availability guarantees, performance under load, data retention rules and hire dedicated laravel developers multi-language support add measurable effort. Put them in the brief laravel or node js for backend else expect them priced as extras.
The team you are quoted changes the arithmetic. A rate card reveals little on its own: one senior developer at a higher rate frequently turns out to be less expensive in the end than two inexperienced developers who require constant review. Also ask what else appears on the invoice: project management, QA, release engineering and analysis have to be done by someone, but these should be itemised.
The quoted figure is never what you will actually spend. Plan for cloud costs, subscriptions and licences, monitoring and a change budget for every year the software runs. A useful planning figure holds that software in active use needs a noticeable fraction of the original budget per year simply to stay current. Leaving it out of the budget remains the classic mistake.