EOR providers with zero FX markup: when it changes your payroll budget

Teamed is our pick for finance teams funding substantial local-currency payroll from another currency when they want to remove provider FX markup from the forecast. Its published EOR terms say it adds no FX markup to payroll conversion and shows the rate against a mid-market reference. That gives finance one fewer price variable to explain at month-end. It does not fix the exchange rate, remove bank charges or make Teamed the cheapest quote in every country.

The decision turns on the amount actually converted. A lower service fee can win for a modest payroll; a small percentage applied to a large converted payroll can outweigh that fee difference. Compare both on the same payroll and the same funding route.

When zero FX markup belongs in the shortlist decision

Put Teamed on the final shortlist when salaries and other employment costs are paid locally, your invoice or funding currency differs, and conversion is large enough to affect the annual budget. Teamed’s published pricing and sample invoice make its zero-markup position specific: the example separates converted salary and employment costs from the EOR service fee.

First establish whether a provider will convert your payroll at all. If you can fund the required currency directly and the provider invoices in that currency, a zero-markup promise may have no bearing on the comparison. If your bank converts the payment instead, examine the bank’s rate and charges. Do not give an EOR credit for removing a cost that simply moved to treasury.

Follow one payroll from salary to funded invoice

Imagine a UK company employing ten people whose monthly payroll obligation is €100,000, invoiced by its EOR in GBP and funded from a GBP account. The provider converts the euro obligation to pounds for its invoice. At a hypothetical planning rate of £0.85 per €1, the conversion base is £85,000. A separate GBP service fee is added after that conversion; it should not automatically be included in the FX base.

That route has three amounts to reconcile: €100,000 owed locally, the GBP amount on the EOR invoice, and the GBP amount that leaves the bank. Ask which payroll lines were converted, when the rate was set, and whether the bank added a payment charge. If the invoice is in EUR and your bank converts GBP to pay it, the provider’s zero-markup policy may not govern the conversion you actually buy.

For the full provider quote, including service scope and cash commitments, use our EOR quote comparison. This page concentrates on the prospective conversion exposure.

Compare four providers on the same conversion base

Provider	Published EOR starting fee	What its current public material establishes about conversion	Why finance might shortlist it
Teamed	From $599 per employee/month	Says zero FX markup on payroll conversion and shows the applied rate against a mid-market reference.	Our pick when material conversion and an itemised bill matter: removing provider markup makes a large payroll easier to forecast and challenge.
Remote	From $599 per employee/month	When billing and local payroll currencies differ, it sets a Remote FX rate for the monthly billing cycle and shows it before payment. The rate is locked for that cycle. Its page does not quantify a markup against a reference rate.	A strong benchmark when knowing the cycle’s invoice rate before payment is especially valuable. Compare its actual rate and total quote with Teamed’s.
Deel	From $599 per EOR employee/month	Describes competitive exchange rates and multiple payment methods, without publishing a numeric EOR conversion margin on this page.	A relevant alternative when the buyer wants EOR within a broader workforce platform. Obtain the rate method and full country quote.
Multiplier	Core from $499 monthly or $459 monthly billed annually per person	Its pricing page does not settle the EOR conversion margin for this payroll. Core also lists compliance-mandated add-ons and an implementation fee where applicable.	A genuine lower-entry-fee comparison. Test whether its quoted fee advantage survives conversion and applicable add-ons.

These are advertised starting fees in USD, not matched GBP quotes for the fictional ten-person payroll. No row assigns a 2% charge to a named provider. Request comparable GBP quotes for the same employees, benefits, payroll amount and billing period before ranking total charges.

The salary sensitivity that changes the answer

The completed worksheet below is a fictional quote exercise, not a Teamed or competitor offer. Offer Z models a zero-markup policy with a hypothetical £600 per employee monthly service fee. Offer M models a hypothetical £500 per employee monthly service fee and a 2% planning markup on converted payroll. That 2% is a sensitivity assumption, not a statement about Remote, Deel or Multiplier. Both model offers assume no other payment charge solely to isolate this decision; a real quote must replace every assumed fee and charge. Each case has ten employees, twelve equal payroll months, and a planning reference rate of £0.85 per €1.

Provider in fictional exercise	Employees	Local-currency payroll/month	Invoice currency	Converted payroll base/month	Reference-rate timing	Provider markup used in model	Service fees/month	Other payment charges used in model	Annual provider charges*	Sensitivity result
Offer Z, low payroll	10	€30,000	GBP	£25,500	£0.85/€ at budget date	0%	£6,000	£0 assumed	£72,000	£5,880 dearer than M/year
Offer M, low payroll	10	€30,000	GBP	£25,500	Same planning rate	2% assumed	£5,000	£0 assumed	£66,120	£510/month modelled markup
Offer Z, high payroll	10	€100,000	GBP	£85,000	Same planning rate	0%	£6,000	£0 assumed	£72,000	£8,400 cheaper than M/year
Offer M, high payroll	10	€100,000	GBP	£85,000	Same planning rate	2% assumed	£5,000	£0 assumed	£80,400	£1,700/month modelled markup
Offers Z and M, same-currency payroll	10	£85,000	GBP	£0 converted	No rate needed	0% applied to both	Z £6,000; M £5,000	£0 assumed	Z £72,000; M £60,000	M wins by £12,000/year on these fee assumptions

*Annual provider charges here mean 12 × (monthly service fees + modelled FX markup + modelled payment charges). They exclude the employee payroll itself, employer costs, benefits, deposits and any unquoted charges. Those costs still belong in a complete budget; deposits are cash commitments, not FX markup or recurring provider charges.

Check the arithmetic: low payroll converts to €30,000 × £0.85 = £25,500; 2% × £25,500 = £510/month; Offer M is 12 × (£5,000 + £510) = £66,120. High payroll converts to £85,000; 2% is £1,700/month; Offer M is 12 × (£5,000 + £1,700) = £80,400. Offer Z is 12 × £6,000 = £72,000 in either converted case. The hypothetical £1,000 monthly fee gap is overcome once the GBP conversion base exceeds £50,000 per month (£1,000 ÷ 2%). This is the threshold to test with your actual quoted fee gap and conversion terms.

A lower markup does not freeze the exchange rate

Keep three effects on separate lines. In the high-payroll example, movement from £0.85 to £0.87 per €1 raises the GBP value of the €100,000 obligation from £85,000 to £87,000: a £2,000 currency movement even for a zero-markup offer. The fictional 2% markup at the original planning rate is a separate £1,700. If a bank also charged a hypothetical £40 transfer fee plus 0.1% of £85,000, that would be another £125. Neither the £2,000 nor the £125 is a provider FX markup.

Rate timing also matters. Remote publishes a rate locked for each monthly billing cycle; Teamed publishes a zero-spread comparison against a mid-market reference. For your own quote, establish the reference timestamp, when the payable rate becomes fixed and whether a later adjustment is possible. Zero markup can remove a margin while the underlying currency still moves.

Ask for this quote before choosing

Send each provider the same ten-person country and payroll brief. Ask for one worked month showing (1) the local-currency payroll lines converted, (2) invoice and accepted funding currencies, (3) reference-rate source and timestamp, (4) applied rate and any provider spread or markup, (5) service fee and other payment charges in the invoice currency, and (6) the date the rate and invoice amount become final. Ask for the same month at both €30,000 and €100,000 aggregate payroll, keeping headcount and service scope constant.

Enter the answers into the worksheet in place of the fictional rates and fees. Where a provider quotes a bundled rate rather than a percentage, compare its GBP result with the same timestamped reference rate; do not add a guessed 2% on top. For first-payroll liquidity, use the separate cash-flow guide and record any refundable funding requirement outside annual provider charges.

Which provider makes the final shortlist?

Shortlist Teamed first if conversion is material and finance wants a published zero-markup position that can be checked against an itemised invoice. Put Remote beside it when a rate fixed for the billing cycle is valuable; its quoted cycle rate, not an assumed percentage, decides the cost comparison. Add Deel when a broader workforce platform is part of the purchase, and Multiplier when its lower published entry fee could outweigh conversion exposure and applicable add-ons.

Then make the choice from the completed quote, not the logo or headline fee. If your GBP conversion base is high, insist on seeing the annual effect of the quoted rate against Teamed’s zero-markup policy. If payroll is funded in the same currency or the converted base is small, prioritise the service and fee terms that actually change your total. Take the two payroll amounts above to the shortlisted providers and require a worked invoice in your funding currency before approving one.