Fish farmers aim to maximise fish weight relative to feed inputs needed to turn a profit. Yet, many farmers in Africa lack the cash flow to grow large fish and many consumers prefer, or are limited to purchasing, small fish. This study aimed to intentionally produce small tilapia in cages by assessing the effects of higher stocking densities and shorter growth cycles on production and financial efficiency. An experiment with 3 treatments and 6 replicates took place on Lake Victoria. The first treatment (T1) used a stocking density of 2.9 ± 0.3 kg per m-3 and aimed to produce fish to an average body weight (ABW) of 400g (final ABW = 500.33 + 31.01 g after 138 days). Treatment two (T2) did the same but with double the stocking density (5.9 ± 0.3 kg per m-3 ), resulting in a final ABW of 439.22 + 22.22 g over 138 days. The third treatment (T3) partially harvested 50% of the cage (after 76 days) once reaching an ABW of 230.92 ± 22.55 g. The remaining fish in T3 were allowed to grow on to an ABW of 400g (final ABW = 499.86 ± 15.95 g). A fourth production scenario (M1) based on data from T3, modelled a 100% harvest after 76 days of culture. There were no significant differences in mortality between treatments. There were no statistical differences in the feed conversion ratio (FCR) between T1 (1.51 ± 0.03) and T2 (1.49 ± 0.02), though T3 was statistically lower (1.46 ± 0.02; p = 0.03). Cages in T1 had a higher proportion of fish between 400-599 g while fish in T2 were mostly between 300-499 g. T3 had bimodal distribution with most fish either in 200-299 g or 400-499 g. There was little effect on average price per kg for T1 (3.0 ± 0.01 USD) and T2 (2.98 ± 0.01 USD), though T3 (2.89 ± 0.04 USD) was significantly lower (p = 0.001). Overall, T2 had significantly higher gross margins (17% ± 2.08) than T1 (13% ± 2.3, p = 0.021) and T3 (7.2% ± 2.43, p = 0.001), while M1 had the lowest gross margins (-11.8% ± 5.5). The results suggest that farmers can increase stocking densities. Some farmers can use partial harvesting strategies or shorter cycles to produce small tilapia and faster cash flows, though the economic margins are lower. Such approaches can provide opportunities for poor farmers and consumers.