Compare the complete move.
A useful comparison starts with the people, work locations and services that will stay the same. It then separates ongoing expenses, the cost of changing provider, internal work and the cash needed during the handover. Published payroll and PEO research can help define what to measure, but it does not establish an average saving from switching EORs.
Original migration benchmarks have not yet been released. The framework below describes how we will collect and assess evidence; it does not report an average saving or a provider success rate.
A COMPARABLE COST BASE
Four things to put on the record.
Agree the comparison period and workforce first. Keep currencies separate until you have a dated conversion assumption, and compare like-for-like scope before calculating a difference.
Ongoing employment and service costs
Record salary, statutory employer contributions, agreed benefits, provider fees, payment charges and FX charges for the same workforce and period.
- Evidence to collect
- Current and proposed written quotes, scope of services, headcount bands, volume-discount conditions and matched invoices.
- Comparison check
- Keep salary and statutory pass-through costs visible. A lower service fee can coexist with higher charges elsewhere.
One-off costs of the move
Record setup, outgoing-provider exit fees, contract and legal work, integrations and additional service charges during overlap.
- Evidence to collect
- Order forms, termination terms, itemised transition invoices and the agreed cutover plan.
- Comparison check
- Assign each charge to the scenario that incurs it. Count a one-off charge once; do not multiply it by the comparison period.
Time spent by your team
Track HR, payroll, finance and management hours spent preparing, reconciling, communicating and resolving issues.
- Evidence to collect
- A dated activity log with a task, role, hours and the relevant migration or country group.
- Comparison check
- Report hours first. Monetise them only with an explicit hourly-cost assumption, and keep this estimate separate from cash paid to suppliers.
Deposits and payroll funding
Track refundable deposits, payroll prefunding, amounts still held by the outgoing provider and actual refund dates.
- Evidence to collect
- Deposit clauses, funding requests, payment records and refund confirmations.
- Comparison check
- Refundable cash tied up is not automatically an expense. Peak cash need depends on payment and refund dates; adding every commitment can double-count funds.
THE AMOUNT BEHIND THE PERCENTAGE
Make the FX charge visible
An FX charge can be a separate invoice line or embedded in the exchange rate. Capture the currencies, the amount converted, the quoted rate, the fixing time and any separate payment fees.
£1,000,000 converted over 12 months × 3% markup = £30,000 in FX charges over those 12 months.
Illustrative arithmetic, not an observed provider fee or market average. Compare rates with the same direction and timing. A difference from an ECB reference rate alone does not establish an undisclosed charge.
ECB reference rates are for information, not transaction pricingAPPLY THE RESEARCH · OUR TOP 20 SCORECARD
Teamed: highest scored for support and fee transparency.
If reachable human support and clear fees are your priorities, Teamed is a strong provider to shortlist. Its published commitments address those priorities and describe a coordinated migration service.
- Support
- 4.9 / 5
- Cost transparency & FX
- 5.0 / 5
- Overall
- 4.7 / 5
Teamed shares the highest overall score with Remote and Deel. The table sorts by overall score, then cost transparency/FX, then name. Comparisons use published scores; unscored categories remain unknown. These are global scores, not a country-specific migration rating.
A named specialist, including for small teams
Teamed says one specialist owns the account, and a one-employee account gets the same routing and response target as a 50-person account.
What to confirm
Confirm the assigned contact, channels, staffed hours, backup and escalation in your agreement. A response target is not a resolution guarantee.
Published fee and FX commitments
Teamed publishes its recurring service fee, itemised employment costs and a zero-FX-markup policy. These address costs that can materially affect a migration budget.
What to confirm
Verify the currency, exchange-rate basis, payment charges, deposits, exit costs and any volume discount in your actual quote. Zero FX markup does not mean zero total fees.
A defined handover service
Teamed describes a named switching team, coordinated payroll and benefits handovers, and support for a later move from EOR to your own entity.
What to confirm
Confirm the employing entity, country-specific transfer route, employee contracts and payroll dates. Continuity and benefit preservation depend on local law and agreed terms.
These are Teamed's published commitments, not independently measured migration outcomes. The five studies in our research review do not compare Teamed with other EOR providers or establish a best provider. Provider pages checked 2026-10-02.
Scores checked: 2026-10-02 · Release top20-febb0806823f4459. Verified against the active scoring database. Scoring methodology
Commercial relationship disclosure is awaiting confirmation. This is Heddle's scorecard-based comparison, not a claim of independent endorsement.
PUBLISHED SOURCES
What the research can tell us.
These studies provide context and measurement ideas. Their populations, services and methods differ, so we do not combine their results into one migration ROI or use them to rank providers.
Sources checked 2026-10-02. This is a selected review of public primary sources, not an exhaustive systematic review or quantitative meta-analysis. The studies examine different services, populations and outcomes; several are commercially sponsored. Their results cannot be combined into an overall EOR migration effect or used to rank providers. This review contains no original migration benchmark results.
The Total Economic Impact of Deel Global Payroll
Interviewees described less payroll administration and better access to support. The model translates reported experience and stated assumptions into potential costs and benefits.
- Scope
- January 2025 study of global payroll consolidation, with a separate qualitative discussion of EOR use.
- Sample
- Six representatives from five software organizations. Their interviews informed a hypothetical composite with 1,500 employees across 15 countries; that workforce is a modeling assumption, not the research sample.
- Funding
- Commissioned by Deel, which supplied customer names and reviewed the report. Forrester states it retained editorial control.
Limit: Selected customers, no control group and a modeled composite. EOR is explicitly excluded from the financial model. The report disclaims competitive comparison and does not predict other organizations' returns.
Use in this research: Useful for identifying cost, implementation and support questions. It does not establish EOR migration savings or compare EOR providers.
Read the original source — Forrester ConsultingThe Total Economic Impact of ADP Global Payroll
Interviewees described more consistent payroll processes and reporting. The model includes implementation work, licensing, legacy-system retirement and assumed efficiency benefits.
- Scope
- January 2026 study of enterprise global payroll managed services and consolidation.
- Sample
- Four decision-makers from four organizations. A hypothetical composite of 20,000 employees in 20 markets underpins the financial analysis; it is not an observed migration cohort.
- Funding
- Commissioned by ADP, which supplied customer names and reviewed the report. Forrester states it retained editorial control.
Limit: Selected customers, no control group and scenario-dependent assumptions. The report disclaims competitive comparison and does not guarantee results for other organizations. It evaluates global payroll services rather than an EOR transfer route.
Use in this research: Useful for planning implementation effort and comparing like-for-like cost categories. Its model cannot be pooled with another provider's model to establish relative performance.
Read the original source — Forrester ConsultingPEO Clients: Faster Growing, More Resilient Businesses With Lower Turnover Rates
The report finds higher employment growth, lower adjusted turnover and higher survival among PEO clients than its comparison groups.
- Scope
- September 2024 report on US PEO clients' employment growth, turnover and business survival.
- Sample
- Growth: 23 PEOs reporting on 15,900 clients. Turnover: 20 PEOs reporting on almost 20,000 clients. Survival: 1,015 matched company pairs. These are separate, partly overlapping analyses.
- Funding
- Published by NAPEO, the PEO industry association, with analysis by McBassi & Company; this is industry-sponsored evidence.
Limit: Observational associations do not establish causation. Growth excludes clients joining or leaving during the year; turnover is annualized from one month with modeled comparison adjustments. Comparison-company PEO status is partly estimated.
Use in this research: Context for US PEO decisions. It does not test EOR migration, provider switching or country-specific transfer outcomes.
Read the original source — NAPEO; research by McBassi & CompanyGetting the World Paid Survey Report 2025
The report describes hybrid service models, fragmented systems and gaps in payroll performance measurement.
- Scope
- Global payroll systems, delivery models, governance and operational challenges; responses collected from 3 February to 3 April 2025.
- Sample
- 585 payroll-professional respondents. Most were located in the United States, and more than 36% reported managing payroll in at least six countries. Respondents are not a verified count of distinct employers.
- Funding
- Published by PayrollOrg, a payroll professional association. No separate funder is identified in the inspected report.
Limit: A voluntary, self-reported survey without a migration comparison group. Respondent location, role and exposure affect the findings. Reported country difficulty is not a standardized compliance-risk score.
Use in this research: Useful for designing a migration checklist and consistent operational measures. It cannot show that switching or consolidating providers causes better results.
Read the original source — PayrollOrgExploring Differences In-house Human Resource Versus Outsourced Human Resource Small Business Employee Samples in Perceived Organizational Support
The study did not detect an overall difference in perceived organizational support or average reported HR response time between the two groups.
- Scope
- US small-business employees' perceived organizational support and reported HR response times; survey conducted in November 2023.
- Sample
- 101 employees with in-house HR and 97 with outsourced HR, in organizations employing 50–150 people. Some table analyses use 93 outsourced-HR respondents; denominators vary by analysis.
- Funding
- No funding declaration was found in the inspected article; this does not establish absence of funding or commercial interests.
Limit: Cross-sectional self-report with no independent confirmation of outsourcing status. Payroll is excluded from the outsourcing definition. Response time uses categories rather than logged duration; a nonsignificant result does not prove equivalence.
Use in this research: Useful for identifying employee-experience measures. It does not measure EOR or payroll-provider migration outcomes.
Read the original source — Journal of Behavioral and Applied ManagementWhy this is not a meta-analysis. This is a targeted review of selected primary studies, not an exhaustive systematic review or a statistical meta-analysis. A later systematic review would predefine a route, population, comparator, outcome and follow-up period. Pool results only if the studies provide comparable estimates and enough information about uncertainty; check sponsorship, selection bias and reused cohorts first.
Our approach draws on transparent synthesis and scoping-review principles: Cochrane’s guidance on synthesis without meta-analysis and PRISMA-ScR. This edition is a targeted review and does not claim compliance with a completed systematic-review protocol.
THE ORIGINAL RESEARCH PLAN
Follow the quote through the first 90 days.
Our proposed cohort will link quoted terms to invoices and recorded outcomes. The questions are set before reviewing the results.
- What changed between the signed quote and the first three invoices, after matching country, headcount, salary, benefits, currency and service scope?
- How long did each country handover take, and what caused any difference from the agreed plan?
- Was the first scheduled payroll paid on time, and how many payslips needed correction?
- Was a named human contact available at the promised times, including for small teams?
- When were deposits returned, and how much additional cash was needed during overlap?
Country and route come first.
Start with the United Kingdom, United States, Netherlands, Switzerland and South Africa. Record the applicable state, province or canton where it affects the arrangement.
One employer can have several country groups and cutovers. Link records with pseudonymous employer, migration and group IDs. Count employers, migrations, country cutovers and payslips separately.
Record the decision before the move where possible. Retain cases that stay, renegotiate, cancel or do not complete, and record missing follow-ups. Completed migrations alone would give an incomplete picture.
Before the decision
Current costs, written proposed quote, objectives, headcount, route, service promises and intended cutover.
First scheduled payroll
Actual handover date, payments due and paid late, corrected payslips, extra work and unresolved issues.
Day 30
First invoices against the agreed scope, support response records, transition expenses and money still held.
Day 90
Three months of invoices, recurring corrections, support experience, refunds, internal hours and whether objectives were met.
BEFORE A FINDING IS PUBLISHED
Make the evidence traceable.
Separate experience from verification
A participant account establishes what they report. A quote, invoice or timestamp can corroborate a specific fact. Checking a transcript does not independently prove an alleged service failure.
Keep roles and routes distinct
Employer administrators and affected employees answer different questions. Keep their reviews separate, and do not combine PEO, EOR and payroll-service changes into one outcome.
Match scope before calculating differences
Use the same country, workforce, pay period, currency and services. Explain salary, benefit, headcount or exchange-rate changes. If material costs are missing, publish a partial comparison rather than a savings claim.
Publish the denominator
Report eligible employers, migrations and country groups, the number contributing to each measure, missing records and observation dates. Several comments from one buyer are not several independent customers.
Check permission and protect source material
Record permitted research and publication uses separately from evidence verification. Use redacted documents and pseudonymous IDs. Keep the identity key and raw documents in a separately controlled location; pseudonymous data is not necessarily anonymous.
Explain interests and corrections
Disclose study sponsorship, relevant referral or commercial relationships and how cases were selected. Review conflicting evidence, retain a version history and give named providers an opportunity to respond before publishing attributed findings.
Release checks
- Documented permission for the intended publication and redaction review completed.
- Source evidence checked against the reported claim, with unresolved conflicts labelled.
- Comparable cohorts defined by route, country, size, service tier, currency and period.
- Sample counts, missingness, selection method and relevant commercial interests reported.
- Small or identifying groups withheld or combined appropriately; no unsupported country ranking or causal claim.
- A second reviewer checks a sample of coding and reconciliations before release.
The collection workbook implements this framework. Verification, research-use permission and publication permission are different fields. No current provider score is recalculated from these records.
BLANK COLLECTION TEMPLATES
Use the same questions for every migration.
The workbook links cases, cost records, outcomes and support experiences with pseudonymous IDs. The CSV pack includes the same tables and a codebook explaining the fields.
These are blank templates, not benchmark results. Complete and store them in your own controlled workspace. No completed records or documents are uploaded through this page.
Prepared by Heddle. The service funding and referral model is not yet finalised. Relevant commercial relationships and research funding must be disclosed alongside future original findings.