Remote.com vs G-P
Both providers publish a price, and G-P is the cheaper of the two: $599 per employee per month against Remote’s $699. We had that the wrong way round until we re-checked both pricing pages at source on 6 August 2026.
So price is no longer the line that separates them. The choice is between a platform you drive yourself across a 90-country hiring footprint, and an account team covering 180+ countries where G-P claims at least 100 of the employing entities are its own.
An employer of record becomes the legal employer of your overseas hire. It signs the contract, runs local payroll and carries the statutory filings, so which company that is, in which country, is what your legal team will ask you to name.
How do Remote.com and G-P compare at a glance?
| Service Area |
RRemote
|
GG-P
|
|---|---|---|
| Score (WhichPayroll disclosure index, /10) | 8.0Ahead of G-P on security disclosure. Behind on published country count, which is the heaviest single input. | 9.5Almost all of the 1.5-point lead is the 180+ country count. The index scores what a provider publishes on its website, and G-P’s commercial terms are not on it. |
| EOR pricing | $699Per employee per month. The $599 annual rate is no longer shown on Remote’s pricing page. | $599Per employee per month. G-P’s own FAQ calls this both a “starting price” and “the same flat rate across all 180+ countries”. |
| Contractor payments | $29 per contractor. $99 adds misclassification cover to $100,000; $325 buys Contractor of Record, where Remote engages the contractor itself. | $39 per contractor across 190+ markets, before transaction, VAT and FX fees. No Contractor of Record equivalent. |
| Global payroll | $29/employee/month | Not published |
| Country coverage | 90+ published EOR countries, 190+ for contractors. Owned-versus-partner split not published. | 180+ advertised, of which G-P claims at least 100 on entities it owns. The remaining eighty are not broken out. |
| Time to hire | Not published. Onboarding is described but no timescale is committed to. | Not published. Onboarding is described but no timescale is committed to. |
| Commitment and deposit | Month-to-month, no security deposit | Contract terms not published, deposit not published |
| Support model | Chat-first and self-service | Named account manager, around 4.4/5 on G2 |
Remote vs G-P – verdict
Both run owned-entity EOR and both now publish a rate, which is new. Pick Remote when the employing company has to be Remote itself and you want to move without a sales call.
Pick G-P when your country list is long, the legal review is heavy, and you would rather someone else owned the answer.
Price from
Remote
$699 per employee per month for EOR, with no security deposit and no setup fee. Contractors run $29, or $99 with misclassification cover to $100,000, or $325 for Contractor of Record. Global payroll is $29 per employee.
G-P
$599 per employee per month for EOR. G-P Contractor starts at $39 across 190+ markets. The deposit, FX margin, minimum term and any setup charge are not published anywhere on the site.
Best for
Remote
Teams hiring into Europe and the other mainstream markets, who want the employing entity named and owned, and who need somewhere to escalate a contractor engagement when a classification question gets uncomfortable.
G-P
Enterprises with a long country list, a legal function that leads the decision, and an SAP, Workday, ADP or UKG stack the EOR has to plug into. Also anyone hiring where Remote has no entity at all.
Deal breaker
Remote
Ninety-odd EOR markets is a narrow footprint, and it is now the dearer of the two on the platform line. If your list runs past its core European and North American footprint, Remote will send you elsewhere for the rest.
G-P
The published rate is one line of a bill with four unpublished ones underneath it. There is also no Contractor-of-Record tier, so misclassification risk stays on your books.
Sources: remote.com/pricing and globalization-partners.com/employer-of-record-solutions/, both fetched 6 August 2026, alongside our own Remote review and G-P review.
Check current pricing and plans
Open each provider to compare current pricing, plans, and setup details.
What are the key differences between Remote.com and G-P?
Who does the work. With Remote you run the platform yourself. With G-P you brief an account team and they run it for you, and everything else on this page follows from that.
The practical test is who chases a Brazilian filing change when the rules move. On Remote that notice lands in your inbox and someone on your side has to act on it. On G-P it lands with your account manager first.
Remote.com vs G-P on pricing
G-P is $100 a head a month cheaper on the platform line, $599 against Remote’s $699, and that is the reverse of what most of the web will tell you. Ask the usual comparison sites and you will still be given a G-P range of $800 to $1,000, quote-only.
The reason is dull and worth knowing. G-P has never had a pricing page, so the rate sits on its employer-of-record product page instead.
Anyone sweeping globalization-partners.com/pricing gets a 404 and files the provider as undisclosed. We did exactly that for months, which is why this page used to say the opposite.
Read the G-P text closely and it says two things at once. The same FAQ calls $599 a “starting price” and “the same flat rate across all 180+ countries”. Those cannot both be true, and the one you get is decided in the quote.
Remote moved in the opposite direction. Our June 2026 record had a $599 annual-billing rate on its pricing page. On 6 August we found the annual toggle gone from the interface, so $699 monthly is the only rate a buyer can now select.
The $599 has not been deleted, though. It is still in the page’s own data, tagged to an “Annually” billing cycle at 599 USD and 550 EUR, and simply not offered to a buyer.
So if a Remote salesperson quotes you $599, that is where it comes from. Get it written into the contract on the day, because nothing on the public page will support it later.
What neither rate settles is the rest of the bill. Remote asks for no security deposit and publishes no setup fee, so your Finance team can build a complete monthly figure from the website alone.
For G-P they cannot. The deposit is the row that matters most, because on a twenty-person team a month of held cash is working capital you do not get back until you leave.
Remote.com vs G-P on compliance
A country amends its termination rules. G-P’s legal team rewrites the affected contracts and briefs your account manager. Remote updates the platform and emails you the notice, and the work of acting on it is yours.
Which you want depends on whether you have someone to receive that notice. If your global People Ops function is one person who also runs UK payroll, an unread compliance email is the whole risk.
On integrations they aim at different buyers. Remote is API-first, with connectors into Workday, BambooHR, HiBob, Personio, NetSuite, QuickBooks, Xero, Greenhouse and Vanta, which suits a team that already has an HRIS and wants the EOR to feed it.
G-P ships out-of-the-box connectors for ADP, UKG, HiBob and Greenhouse plus a published API, and adds two AI tools: Gia for employment questions and Assist for routine HR and compliance support. That list is built for a company running SAP or Workday at the centre, not for a fifty-person startup.
Remote.com vs G-P on country coverage
G-P reaches twice as far, and neither provider breaks the number down. G-P advertises 180+ countries and claims at least 100 wholly owned entities among them, which leaves as many as eighty markets it does not account for.
Remote publishes a 90+ country employer-of-record footprint and does not say which of those it employs through subsidiaries it owns and which run through partners. Treat both figures as reach, not as entity ownership.
We used to print a third-party figure of 125 owned G-P markets here. We have removed it. It was more generous than G-P’s own claim, and using a number better than the vendor’s to criticise the vendor was the wrong way round.
For the US, UK, Germany or Singapore, both are straightforward and the choice turns on the rest of this page. Past that mainstream list, neither publishes a country index you can check.
So a shortlist that reaches into Kazakhstan or Ghana gets settled by putting the country name to both sales teams and holding them to the answer in writing.
On Remote you can at least check part of the answer yourself. It publishes company registration numbers, and we confirmed its UK subsidiary, Remote Technology Services Ltd, at Companies House under number 12387671 on 6 August 2026.
Remote.com vs G-P on support
Remote runs chat-first support and expects most queries to resolve inside the platform, which is fast on the routine ones and thin when a case is genuinely difficult. G-P gives you a named account manager, and its reviewers single out where that pays: terminations, audits, relocations.
Both sit around 4.4 out of 5 on G2. We could not verify the review counts at either site, so we do not print them, and you should treat both scores as self-selecting.
Response time is the recurring complaint on both sides, and neither provider publishes a response standard for us to hold them to. That absence is the finding.
So put it in the evaluation. Ask each vendor to commit a response time for an urgent compliance query in writing, and treat a refusal as an answer.
Remote.com vs G-P on mixed workforce
Remote is the better home for a team that is half contractors. Employees, contractors and payroll run on one platform, contractors start at $29, and you can escalate a risky engagement to Contractor of Record at $325, where Remote becomes the contractor’s legal counterparty and takes the exposure onto its own books.
G-P Contractor covers 190+ markets and starts at $39, with an AI tool that flags classification risk, but it stops there. There is no Contractor-of-Record tier, so the misclassification liability stays with you.
Run 20 employees and 30 contractors across ten countries and that gap is worth more than the $10 a head. Misclassification is a ruling that someone you paid as a contractor was legally your employee all along, and the bill is back taxes, unpaid contributions and usually penalties.
How do Remote.com and G-P compare on pricing total cost?
Both are now modellable, and the gap is smaller than the platform fee suggests. On a senior developer in Berlin the choice is worth $1,200 a year, because the platform fee is the smallest line on the invoice.
Senior developer in Berlin, $100,000 salary
Remote: $129,688 a year
Salary $100,000
Employer statutory contributions ~$21,300
Platform fee $8,388 (12 × $699)
G-P: $128,488 a year
Salary $100,000
Employer statutory contributions ~$21,300
Platform fee $7,188 (12 × $599)
German employer contributions add roughly 21.3% of gross, or about 22.6% once DGUV statutory accident insurance is counted. We have used the narrower figure. Neither total includes a deposit: Remote asks for none, and G-P does not publish one.
Scale it up and the platform line stays the junior partner. A 20-person team of 12 employees and 8 contractors runs $8,620 a month on Remote (12 × $699, plus 8 × $29) against $7,500 on G-P (12 × $599, plus 8 × $39).
That is $13,440 a year in G-P’s favour, and it is the number your procurement team will lead with. Neither rate is contractual. Both are an opening position.
G-P says it offers volume discounts, so on a multi-seat deal we would treat $599 as the ceiling to negotiate under. It publishes no contract terms at all, which leaves the minimum term, the notice period and the year-two uplift open.
Get the year-two movement written down before you sign. A flat rate across countries does you no good if it is not flat across renewals, and the renewal is where an unpublished term does its damage.
How do Remote.com and G-P compare on compliance depth?
G-P goes deeper, and we would put that down to fourteen years in the market. It was founded in 2012, before most of this category existed, and its advantage is people more than software: in-country specialists, and standing relationships with local counsel in markets newer providers avoid.
Remote’s depth is concentrated instead. It is strong across Europe, North America and its main Asian markets, and there it publishes the registration number of the company that employs your staff. Past that ring a partner enters the picture and the audit trail gets one step longer.
On intellectual property, Remote has the more explicit product. IP Guard is built into every EOR contract and documents the chain of transfer from the employee to you, which matters when your engineering output is the asset the business is valued on.
On classification the shape reverses. Remote makes you answer the questions inside the platform, which leaves a record. G-P’s advisers give you the answer, which leaves less of one, and the record is what Legal will want if a borderline engagement is ever challenged.
WhichPayroll view
Neither coverage claim survives contact with procurement. Both providers publish a country count and neither publishes the entity list behind it, so 90+ and 180+ are marketing reach on both sides.
So ask both for the named employing company in each of your target countries, and ask while the quote is still open. Both can answer it, and that document is what your legal review actually turns on. After signature you are asking a customer-success manager for a favour.
Which should you choose: Remote.com or G-P?
We would not split this on price, now that $100 a head separates them and neither publishes what sits underneath. Split it on who carries the compliance work in your company, and on whether your country list fits inside Remote’s ninety.
Choose Remote if
- Your hiring sits inside Remote’s core footprint, where it employs people through companies it owns and names.
- Your engineering output is the asset, and you want the IP chain on paper.
- Contractors are a large part of the team, and you may need to escalate one to Contractor of Record.
- You would rather not tie up a deposit, and you want to start without a sales cycle.
- You have someone in-house who will act on a compliance notice when it arrives.
Choose G-P if
- Your country list runs past Remote’s ~90 EOR markets, particularly into the harder ones.
- Legal leads this decision, and you want a named team that owns the answer when a country changes its rules.
- You run SAP, Workday, ADP or UKG and the EOR has to sit inside that stack properly.
- You are hiring at a volume worth negotiating, and $599 is a published ceiling G-P says it discounts on.
- You can get the deposit, minimum term and year-two uplift in writing before you sign.
Consider an alternative if
- Your hiring is concentrated in one region: Papaya Global for EMEA, Multiplier for Asia-Pacific.
- You want the widest product surface on one platform, in which case Deel matches Remote’s model at the same $599 headline as G-P.
- Neither will name its employing company in the two or three countries you actually care about, which is a procurement answer in itself.
WhichPayroll tool
EOR Fee Comparison
Compare total employment costs across providers by country and salary level
Remote.com vs G-P: Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, Remote or G-P?
G-P, by $100 a head a month on the platform fee. On a twelve-employee team that is $14,400 a year.
Whether it survives the quote is another matter. Remote publishes that it charges no deposit and no setup fee. G-P publishes neither figure, and one month of deposit on twelve heads at $599 is $7,188 of cash tied up.
Does Remote or G-P offer better compliance protection?
G-P, if the risk is jurisdictional. Its legal team absorbs regulatory change and its in-country specialists handle the awkward cases, which is what you are buying at enterprise scale.
Remote is stronger on the two things that leave a paper trail: IP Guard documenting the chain of IP transfer, and classification questions you answer inside the platform.
If a borderline engagement is challenged two years later, you can produce the answers you gave and the date you gave them. Advice delivered over the phone leaves you nothing to produce.
Do Remote and G-P really own entities in all their countries?
No, and neither claims to. G-P advertises 180+ countries against a claim of at least 100 wholly owned entities. Remote publishes 90+ countries and no ownership split at all.
Remote does publish company registration numbers for the entities it owns, so you can look those up at the registry yourself. G-P confirms its entity list on request.
Why did this comparison change?
Because we had G-P’s price wrong, and in Remote’s favour, which is the direction that should worry you given Remote is the only affiliate link on this page.
We have corrected the figure, the score that rested on it and the cost model, and set out in the methodology below what that corrected score does and does not measure.
WhichPayroll data sources used in this comparison
- Employer cost and burden: total employment cost by country
- Provider coverage and entity model: verified country availability data
- Fully burdened cost model: total employer cost including platform fees, taxes, and benefits
WhichPayroll Research used in this comparison
- EOR Cost Benchmark: published EOR fee ranges and pricing model disclosure across providers
- EOR vs Entity Break-Even Benchmark: 40-country break-even analysis: EOR vs own legal entity with cost thresholds
How did WhichPayroll compare Remote.com and G-P?
We read both providers’ own pages at source on 6 August 2026, and our earlier record turned out to be the thing that was wrong. Around that we used twelve months of G2 and Capterra reviews, provider help-centre documentation, UK company registry filings, and official German contribution rates for the cost model.
What we did not do is run a live payroll on either platform. Everything said here about how the products behave comes from published documentation and user reports. We hold no account with either provider, and you should weight it accordingly.
One disclosure worth making plainly. The only affiliate link on this page is Remote’s, the G-P link earns us nothing, and the correction below runs against Remote. WhichPayroll does not sell these services and does not accept payment for editorial placement.
Data Sources
- Provider pricing pages for both brands (re-fetched at source 6 August 2026)
- G2 and Capterra reviews for both brands (Jan–Aug 2026)
- Provider help centre documentation and country guides
- WhichPayroll provider score composite data (see sources & data)
Research Approach
- Pricing model and total employment cost
- Entity model and compliance infrastructure
- Country coverage depth and quality
- Platform usability and onboarding experience
- Customer support model and response standards
- Verified user feedback from G2 and Capterra
Corrections at this update, 6 August 2026. We had G-P’s price wrong: this page said G-P published no EOR rate and sat at a premium above Remote. It publishes $599.
Remote is now shown at the $699 it displays, rather than the $599 annual rate it has stopped offering. We have also removed an unsupported third-party entity count, explained in the coverage section, and rebuilt the Berlin cost model at both corrected rates.
And a caution about the score above. Feeding the corrected price through the disclosure index moved G-P from 7.6 to 9.5, which now reads as a compliment the rest of this page does not pay.
The index weights four published things: country count 30%, pricing transparency 25%, security disclosure 25%, integrations 20%. G-P’s lead is almost entirely its 180+ country count against Remote’s 90+, and Remote actually scores higher than G-P on security disclosure.
Nothing in that rubric touches the deposit, the minimum term, the notice period or the FX margin. G-P publishes none of them. So read 9.5 as what a provider puts on its website, not as how much it will tell you before you sign.