Those are industry-wide figures rather than ALServices quotes — every site is different, and the only accurate number comes from a survey. But they're a realistic yardstick for judging whether a quote you've been given is sensible.
What actually drives the cost?
Number of cameras. The biggest single factor. More cameras means more equipment, more cable, and more time on site.
Camera type. Not all cameras cost the same. A standard fixed camera and a 4K varifocal, PTZ or ANPR camera are very different price points — specialist cameras can run into four figures each.
Cable runs and site complexity. Cabling a modern single building is straightforward. Cabling a stone farmhouse, a listed property, or across a yard between separate buildings takes far longer and needs more materials. Distance and access are often bigger cost drivers than the cameras themselves.
Network infrastructure. On a spread-out site, switches and network design are a real part of the job — and the part that determines whether the system can reach the far corners of the site or expand later.
Recorder and storage. More cameras at higher resolution need more storage. Longer retention needs bigger drives.
Lighting. Often overlooked in quotes, and often the difference between usable and useless night footage.
What should be included in a proper quote?
A quote worth trusting should tell you the number and type of cameras and what each one is for, the recorder specification and how much footage it will hold, cabling and installation, system configuration and testing, app setup and handover, and the warranty and support arrangements.
If a quote is just a total with a camera count, ask what each camera is specified to do. "Four cameras" tells you nothing about whether you'll be able to identify anyone.
Why are some quotes so much cheaper?
Usually one of these reasons, and it's worth knowing which:
- Lower-grade equipment with shorter lifespan and weaker low-light performance.
- No survey — a package quoted over the phone, sized by guesswork rather than by what the site needs.
- Cameras positioned for coverage, not identification. Ticking the box of "watching the yard" without producing footage anyone could use as evidence.
- No lighting considered. Cheap by day, useless by night.
- Cabling done quickly rather than properly. Which becomes your problem in a few years.
There's a real difference between a system that records and a system that produces evidence. The gap usually shows up on the worst possible night.
Are there ongoing costs?
Sometimes, and they're worth factoring in:
- Cloud storage if used — typically a monthly cost per camera. Not needed if you're recording locally.
- Alarm monitoring if you have a monitored alarm alongside.
- Maintenance and servicing — worth budgeting for annually, and often required by insurers.
A locally recording CCTV system with no cloud subscription has no compulsory ongoing cost beyond maintenance, which is one of the arguments for it over subscription-based consumer kit — see does CCTV work without internet?
What about DIY systems?
DIY kits are genuinely cheaper up front. For a simple domestic setup with modest expectations, they can be fine.
Where they tend to fall down is on the things that only matter when something happens: camera positioning and lens choice, night-time performance, weatherproofing and cable protection, secure recorder siting (a recorder stolen along with everything else is a common story), and — for businesses — data protection compliance, which is a legal obligation rather than a nice-to-have.