Which EOR proposal survives a delayed-growth scenario?
By Hazel Jackson · Learning & Development Analyst
Updated
A CFO can approve a three-hire budget and still end up with one employee on payroll for most of the quarter. The cost of that delay depends on what the EOR proposal commits you to pay: active employees, reserved seats or a minimum contract value.
Teamed is our pick for a CFO asked to approve three hires before their start dates are secure, if the signed proposal bills only employees who actually start. Its itemised costs then give finance a bill it can explain as the hiring plan moves. Its published terms describe a per-employee monthly fee, itemised employment costs and zero markup on payroll currency conversion. That gives finance a way to explain the bill as headcount changes. Teamed’s pricing starts at $599 per employee per month; the price and terms for your hires belong in the signed proposal.
Compare the plan that misses its target
Ask every provider to price the same planned starts and the same delayed starts. Separate three things: employment expense for people who actually start, refundable cash held as a deposit or reserve, and service fees owed for seats that never fill. A low fee per employee cannot rescue a proposal that commits you to unused seats.
Here is a fictional four-month example, in USD. Each active employee costs an assumed $5,000 gross salary plus $1,000 employer costs per month. Those are modelling assumptions, not a country quote or statutory rate. For Teamed, the example assumes its published starting fee of $599 applies and that the agreement bills only active employees. One new hire requires a $5,000 refundable deposit. Teamed’s pricing FAQ says the deposit equals one month’s gross salary and is funded separately from the first month’s employment cost. This example assumes no currency conversion, benefits add-ons, employment exits or deposit refunds during the four months.
| Month | Planned hires | Delayed hires | Commitment used in the model | Cash exposure: planned / delayed |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1 | 1 | $6,599 per active employee; $5,000 deposit for a new start | $11,599 / $11,599 |
| 2 | 2 | 1 | Same active-employee rule | $18,198 / $6,599 |
| 3 | 3 | 1 | Same active-employee rule | $24,797 / $6,599 |
| 4 | 3 | 2 | Same active-employee rule | $19,797 / $18,198 |
| Four-month total | 9 employee-months | 5 employee-months | No fee assumed for unfilled seats | $74,391 / $42,995 |
The delayed case is 5 × ($5,000 + $1,000 + $599) + 2 × $5,000 = $42,995. Of that, $10,000 is refundable deposit cash, not an operating expense. The planned case is 9 × $6,599 + 3 × $5,000 = $74,391. The $31,396 gap consists of $26,396 in employment and service costs for four employee-months that did not happen, plus $5,000 of deposit cash that has not yet been funded. It is not a claim of provider savings.
Change the decisive assumption: suppose a proposed agreement instead requires a minimum of three $599 service-fee seats for all four months, including vacant seats. This is a fictional contract exception, not a claim about Teamed’s published standard terms. Service fees become 3 × 4 × $599 = $7,188, against $2,995 for five active employee-months. Delayed-case cash rises to $47,188: $30,000 in modelled employment costs, $7,188 in committed service fees and $10,000 in refundable deposits. The extra $4,193 is the price of unused capacity. Under that proposal, Teamed loses its lead until the seat minimum is removed or justified by other value the buyer actually needs.
The provider shortlist after the stress test
| Provider | Best fit for this decision | What the delayed plan must establish |
|---|---|---|
| Teamed — our pick when the arrangement follows actual hires | A CFO who must defend the bill when month three has one hire rather than three. Teamed’s itemised salary, employer-cost and fee lines give finance a way to reconcile what happened; its account contact gives a disputed line an owner. | Obtain the country quote and confirm that no unfilled-seat minimum, advance service commitment or unsuitable notice term overrides the per-employee model. |
| Multiplier — the lower entry-fee challenger | A buyer whose priority is the lower published monthly EOR fee and who can get the needed scope in Core. Its pricing page lists Core from $499 monthly, versus $459 on an annual contract. Its FAQ also says it adds no FX markup. | Ask which document governs. Multiplier’s FAQ says there is no minimum term, while its order-form terms bind purchased seats regardless of usage. A month-to-month proposal can be attractive here; a committed order form needs its unused-seat cost modelled. |
| Remote — the scoped-fee and upfront-cash comparison | A buyer who values its wider platform and wants to test a proposal without a standard deposit. Remote’s pricing page starts EOR at $599 and says it does not take a standard deposit, though a refundable reserve may apply in some circumstances. | Get the actual fee and reserve decision in writing. Remote’s help page calls $699 its standard monthly fee and distinguishes pay-as-you-go from committed order forms. Compare the specific offer, not the starting price. |
| Deel — the platform-inclusive proposal | A business also buying a wider HR and payroll platform. Deel’s pricing page lists EOR at $599 per employee per month and says month-to-month pricing is available. | Demonstrate the reporting and workflows finance would actually use, then price only the modules in scope. It leaves this narrow shortlist if the purchase is solely an EOR cost decision. |
Multiplier deserves a serious second quote: at its published $499 monthly Core entry fee, five employee-months would mean $2,495 in service fees, $500 below the Teamed fee assumed in the example. That is a fee comparison, not a total-cost verdict; country employment costs, funding and proposal scope still need matching. Teamed earns the lead for this buyer when its actual agreement preserves the active-headcount economics and its itemised billing and hands-on account support help finance reconcile a changing plan. Zero FX markup removes a provider margin where conversion occurs; it does not freeze exchange rates. Multiplier also claims no FX markup, so a blanket FX surcharge against it would distort this comparison.
Decision before signature
Shortlist Teamed and Multiplier for matched, country-specific proposals; keep Remote if upfront cash or its employer setup is material. Bring Deel back if consolidating workforce systems is part of the approved purchase. If Teamed’s proposal introduces the fictional seat-minimum problem, move Multiplier and Remote ahead of it until the commitment is revised.
Send the finalists the four-month start schedule above and ask one question in writing: What service fees and funding are still due if only the first employee starts by month three? Require the answer to show vacant-seat commitments, deposits or reserves, payroll funding dates, conversion method and cancellation terms. Choose the proposal whose delayed-case cash and remaining obligations fit the budget you can actually defend. For the broader finance-led provider decision, see our EOR shortlist hub.