Lano Review
Our verdict
Lano is an unusual proposition among the providers we review: a payroll consolidation layer priced at EUR 3 per employee per month that sits on top of the payroll providers you already run. That EUR 3 figure covers consolidation only, so check the full Lano pricing breakdown before comparing it against EOR-inclusive quotes.
If your Finance team is currently pulling data from three payroll systems each month to answer a single headcount cost question, that line item alone changes the buying case.
The partner-led entity model is the thing procurement will stop on. Lano states it employs through vetted in-country partners, so the legal employer varies by country and your General Counsel will want that confirmed in writing.
For EU-centric mixed-workforce teams Lano is worth the demo slot. Where owned-entity employment is a hard requirement, it is not.
Best for EU-centric payroll consolidation.
Lano is a Berlin-based platform that does something most EOR providers do not attempt: it consolidates payroll data from your EOR hires, your own entities, and your third-party payroll providers into a single dashboard.
Payroll consolidation starts at EUR 3/employee/month.
If your Finance team spends the first week of every month reconciling payroll data across three different providers, that product alone puts Lano on the shortlist.
Lano competes with EOR, global-payroll and contractor platforms, but its strongest differentiation is payroll consolidation. Where Deel and Remote compete more heavily on platform breadth and direct-entity positioning, Lano competes on aggregation. For a side-by-side view of who else sits in that owned-entity tier, our list of Remote alternatives is worth a look.
What Is Lano and How Does It Work?
Lano is a European payroll platform built around one idea: give Finance a single view of workforce data that would otherwise sit in several disconnected systems.
The payroll consolidation layer (EUR 3/employee/month) targets a problem few major providers sell against directly.
Lano is a Berlin-based workforce platform founded in 2018. It runs four core products: Employer of Record from EUR 499/employee/month, multi-country payroll outsourcing from EUR 19/employee/month, contractor management from EUR 19/contractor/month, and a payroll consolidation layer from EUR 3/employee/month.
The consolidation layer is the part that sets Lano apart from most EOR-first rivals. Lano states it pulls data from its own EOR and payroll services and from your existing third-party payroll providers into a single dashboard.
If your operation already runs ADP in one region, a local provider in another, and your own entity payroll in a third, Lano sits on top and gives Finance one set of numbers to work from.
What Lano Does
That consolidation happens at EUR 3 per employee per month.
Who Lano Is Designed For
The primary buyer is a mid-market European company running a mixed workforce: EOR hires in two or three jurisdictions, contractors across five or six, and own-entity employees in the home market. The payroll consolidation layer may pay for itself where reconciliation effort is substantial.
That is the operational pain Lano was built around, and it is the lens through which every other feature should be judged.
A secondary fit is European-based teams where contractor pricing matters. The headline difference is EUR 19 versus USD 49 per contractor per month; the actual saving depends on exchange rates, the services each fee includes and any payment or FX charges.
If your contractor headcount is below 20, the saving rarely justifies the platform trade-offs against Deel.
How Lano Setup Works
Platform integration (connecting existing payroll systems, mapping data fields, configuring reporting) requires hands-on setup work.
The payroll consolidation setup involves API connections or file imports from your existing providers.
Implementation usually stalls at one dependency: getting your existing payroll provider to grant API access or supply clean file exports. The timeline is driven by that access, the number of source systems and the data mapping involved, so treat any single-week estimate with caution and confirm the plan per country.
Lano Review at a Glance
| WhichPayroll score | 7.8/ 10 (provider disclosure index, updated 5 August 2026) |
|---|---|
| Best for | Best for EU-centric payroll consolidation |
| Countries covered | 170+ |
| EOR pricing | From EUR 499/month |
| Pricing transparency | High |
| Coverage model | Aggregator |
| Integration depth | High |
| Security disclosure | Moderate SOC 2 Type II on the official security page; no ISO 27001, and the DPA is referred to there but not published |
Composite score across coverage, pricing transparency, security disclosure and integration depth, weighted 30/25/25/20. The working is directly below. Indicative only, not legal or financial advice; always consult qualified local counsel before acting on any data shown.
How the 7.8 score is calculated
Four dimensions, fixed weights, on a 10-point scale. Coverage carries the most, and the row worth your attention is integration depth at 8.0, which is our own assessment rather than anything Lano publishes.
| Dimension | Input | Score /10 | Weight | Contribution |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coverage | 170+ countries, against the 187 the index uses as its denominator | 9.1 | 30% | 2.73 |
| Pricing transparency | High: from €499/month published, with contractor and payroll rates published too | 10.0 | 25% | 2.50 |
| Security disclosure | SOC 2 Type II, stated on Lano's own security page and re-read 5 August 2026, scores 2. The GDPR data processing agreement scores nothing: the page refers to it but does not publish it. Two certification points of a possible 5 | 4.0 | 25% | 1.00 |
| Integration depth | High. Our assessment, not a published fact: live and on-demand connectors plus a REST API | 8.0 | 20% | 1.60 |
| Composite | — | 7.8 | 100% | 2.73 + 2.50 + 1.00 + 1.60 = 7.83 |
We had the security row wrong, and it moved the score. We scored Lano 2.0 because we read its security page as not naming SOC 2 Type II. It names it four times. The row is 4.0, it contributes 1.00, and the composite moved from 7.3 to 7.8. The change is entirely on our side, and the full account of how we got it wrong is in the changelog at the foot of this page.
One part of it is still open. We do not count a GDPR data processing agreement for Lano, because its security page refers to one without publishing it, and if that reading goes the other way Lano returns to 8.3.
Lano also announced a SOC 1 Type II audit, and that is genuine. It earns no points here, because SOC 1 is not one of the certifications our rubric scores.
Lano publishes no ISO 27001, and that is the one that would move this row again.
What that leaves you to do is unchanged. Ask for the SOC 2 report itself, with its scope and audit window, because a certification badge on a marketing page is not the report and does not tell you which systems were in scope.
What the 7.8 is carrying. Coverage takes 30% and Lano sits near the top of the market on it. Security takes 25% and sits below the middle, on one certification.
That is a fair description of the business: open about money, wide through partner entities, and reasonably documented on controls once you find the page. It is still a poor summary to act on.
A team whose blocker is finding anyone at all who covers their sixteenth country should read the 9.1 on coverage. A team whose blocker is the partner-entity model will find nothing in this score about it at all, because the index does not measure who actually employs your people.
WhichPayroll independent provider disclosure index, recomputed 5 August 2026, with no commercial or affiliate weighting. Coverage, pricing transparency and security disclosure are read from published evidence; integration depth is an editorial assessment. These four weights are the whole score.
It measures what a provider publishes, not how it performs: support, implementation, payroll accuracy and offboarding carry no weight in this number.
Cost friction, offboarding and support quality are not in it, and are covered in the body of this review instead. Full rubric and a worked example on our methodology page.
Key Facts
| EOR pricing | From EUR 499/employee/month. Lano advertises volume discounts on every product and publishes no percentage for any of them |
|---|---|
| Contractor pricing | EUR 19/contractor/month |
| Payroll consolidation | From EUR 3/employee/month (unusual standalone product) |
| Country coverage | 170+ countries via partner network (Lano-stated) |
| Entity model | Partner-led; Lano states no owned entities. Confirm the legal employer per country |
| Founded | 2018, Berlin-based |
Source: lano.io pricing and product pages, accessed 28 July 2026
What does Lano actually offer?
Lano sells four products plus an optional payments layer, each priced separately and combinable across countries and employment types.
The table below keeps them straight: every price is Lano's published starting point, and every coverage figure is provider-stated.
| Service | Starting price | Delivery model | Coverage claim | Main costs to confirm |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Payroll consolidation | €3/employee/month | Lano layer over your existing providers | Not stated separately by service | Data mapping, API access, implementation |
| Multi-country payroll | €19/employee/month | Local payroll partners | 170+ countries stated | Setup, corrections, filings, payments |
| Employer of Record | €499/employee/month | In-country EOR partners | 170+ countries stated | Deposit, benefits, immigration, termination |
| Contractor management | €19/contractor/month | Platform and payment rails | Contracts in 170+ countries stated | FX, payment route, classification support |
| Integrated Payments | Optional add-on | Local networks or SWIFT | 170+ countries, 70+ currencies stated | €25 SWIFT fee, FX margin |
Starting prices and coverage claims from Lano's pricing and product pages, accessed 28 July 2026. Prices are starting points.
What strikes us about this line-up is that the cheap products are the ones Lano built first. The €3 consolidation layer and the €19 payroll are priced like infrastructure; the €499 EOR is priced like everyone else's. If you are buying the EOR alone, you are buying the part of Lano that is least distinctive.
What Lano features matter in practice?
Integrated Payments (optional): Lano's pricing page states its payments layer reaches 170+ countries and 70+ supported currencies, with local-network payments described as free where a local route exists. Lano states SWIFT transfers cost EUR 25 per transaction where no local network is available.
Watch the currency count, because Lano publishes two. The pricing page advertises 70+ supported currencies for Integrated Payments. Every product page, including global payroll, EOR and contractor management, says 28: "Lano currently covers more than 170 countries and 28 local currencies."
Get the payable currency list for your own corridors in writing before you assume your people can be paid locally.
Consolidated reporting: Unified dashboards showing workforce costs, headcount, and compliance status across all employment types and countries. Custom reporting available.
The magic happens when you can answer “What’s our total cost per employee in Germany?” without opening three systems.
Account management: Lano states each client gets a dedicated account manager. Response targets, hours and escalation rights are not published, so confirm the service level in your contract.
Partner network: Lano states it works with multiple EOR partners in some locations and can replace a partner where service standards slip. Whether you can choose or switch the partner, and on what terms, is a contract point to confirm.
Data security: Lano states it holds SOC 2 Type II and encrypts data in transit and at rest using TLS 1.2 and AES-256. Ask for the current report, its period and any exceptions under NDA before you rely on it, because the attestation covers Lano itself, and each in-country partner sits outside its scope.
Lano's privacy policy states it may act as either controller or processor depending on the activity, and its partners may hold separate roles. That makes the DPA, subprocessor list, international-transfer safeguards and partner data flows the documents to review.
Where it stops short: Lano does not position itself as a full native HRIS, though it does list paid-time-off tracking and expense management across plans. It also does not appear to market a dedicated employee mobile app, so confirm current app availability if mobile self-service matters to your team.
One correction worth flagging: Lano's EOR product does list visa and immigration support on its pricing page, so treat immigration as available and likely country-dependent, not absent. On integrations, Lano describes live and on-demand HRIS connections plus a REST API, and publishes no connector count, so we do not cite an integration total.
What does Lano actually cost?
Lano is a payroll-first platform with a modular pricing structure that puts EOR, multi-country payroll and contractor management on separate lines. The €499 EOR rate varies by country and Lano's stated €25 SWIFT fee is the line most consolidated quotes leave out; here is what to confirm before signing.
| Employer of Record | From €499per employee / month (varies by country) |
|---|---|
| Multi-country payroll | €19per employee / month |
| Contractor management | €19per contractor / month |
| Payroll consolidation | €3per employee / month |
| SWIFT transfer (per payment) | €25at most, where no local network exists |
Lano's published starting prices, accessed 28 July 2026. Integrated Payments (170+ countries, 70+ currencies stated) is an optional add-on.
What the headline price leaves out
The SWIFT fee is per payment, not per month: Lano states it charges €25 per SWIFT transfer in countries without a local payment network. Its pricing page puts that as a flat fee; its currency-coverage page says "at most 25 EUR per transaction when using the Lano Wallet", so treat €25 as a ceiling.
On our own arithmetic a 5-person team paid monthly through SWIFT reaches €1,500 a year on payments alone. Confirm whether each target country is on the local-network list or routes via SWIFT before you size the contract.
EOR rate varies meaningfully by country. The €499 figure is Lano's published starting rate; the effective rate depends on the jurisdiction, headcount and services in scope. Some third-party reports cite higher figures in certain markets, so get a country-specific quote in writing before you compare it against other providers.
Modular pricing rewards consolidated buying: EOR, multi-country payroll, contractor management and consolidation are all separate line items. That is excellent for a buyer who needs payroll-only or contractor-only.
It also makes the all-in cost for a full EOR and payroll deployment fiddly to model, so get a bundled quote that totals every module you will actually use.
What to confirm before you sign
The starting prices tell you very little about your real cost or your legal exposure. Take this one checklist into the quote and contract conversation.
| Area | Confirm in writing |
|---|---|
| Pricing & total cost | Exact per-country EOR quote (not the €499 starting rate); a bundled quote covering every module you will use; deposits and prefunding; off-cycle and amendment fees; severance funding; renewal and price-increase terms. |
| Payments & FX | Which corridors use local networks and which route via SWIFT at €25 per payment; the FX margin per currency corridor and whether the rate is fixed or floating. |
| Entity & partners | The named legal employer for each country; the local payroll or EOR partner; the client and employee contracting entities; partner-selection and substitution rights. |
| Liability & exit | Payroll-error liability, indemnity and any liability cap; employee transfer on termination; notice period and minimum contract term. |
| Data & service | The DPA, subprocessor list, transfer safeguards, breach notification and data deletion or return; service levels, response targets and escalation rights. |
WhichPayroll may earn a commission if you book a demo through our links. Reviews remain editorially independent.
How does Lano's compliance model hold up across key markets?
Lano states its EOR is delivered through a network of vetted in-country partners rather than its own entities. That is provider-stated, and it is the single fact your Legal team will test hardest.
Lano’s entity model
With an owned-entity provider, you contract with one counterparty that also employs your staff. With Lano, the employing entity is a local partner that varies by country, so the contracting chain runs client to Lano to partner.
None of that is a flaw on its own, but it does move several questions into the contract. Ask Lano to name the legal employer for each target country, and to set out partner-selection and replacement rights, payroll-error liability and employee-transfer mechanics in writing.
Data governance and the DPA
Lano's privacy policy states it may act as controller or processor depending on the activity, and its partners may hold separate roles. That means your review cannot stop at the security badge.
Ask for the DPA, the subprocessor list, the international-transfer safeguards and a clear picture of how employee data flows to each in-country partner. Those documents decide your GDPR exposure.
Our reading of all this is that the partner model is not a weakness in itself, and we would not mark Lano down for it.
What we would mark down is any provider that cannot name the partner. Ask Lano for the employing company in each of your countries, in writing, and treat a refusal as the answer.
What is the Lano platform and support experience like?
Lano emphasises human support over self-service features.
The bottleneck? Getting API credentials from your existing payroll provider. They’re never enthusiastic about helping you consolidate away from their platform.
Lano Platform
If your team expects the polish of Deel’s interface, prepare them for something more functional than beautiful.
Lano Customer Support
The moment you need clarification on German social insurance calculations, you’ll understand why that three-party coordination matters.
We would test exactly that before signing. Send a real statutory question about your hardest country during evaluation, and time how long it takes to come back with an answer that came from the partner rather than from a summary of the partner.
What are Lano customers actually saying?
Start with the sample size, because it shapes how much weight to give any of this. G2's Lano page blocks automated reads, so we cannot vouch for its rating or its review count.
Third-party citations of it disagree with each other. What is not in dispute is that the public footprint is small next to competitors carrying thousands.
Use the reviews to spot themes and nothing more. Treat the counts as a snapshot that moves, and do not sum figures across G2, Capterra and GetApp, since those platforms syndicate some of the same reviews.
What Lano users praise
Support responsiveness: Account managers draw recurring positive mentions for being accessible and knowledgeable. Reviewers value the human support model.
Common Lano complaints
One reviewer put it plainly: “It works, but it’s not pretty.” We found recurring mentions of a functional-over-polished interface.
At least one 2026 review is more serious, alleging delayed salary processing and a poor response around a termination. Those are individual, unverified allegations, but the delayed-payroll risk is exactly the kind of thing to probe on reference calls.
Integrations: Some reviewers mention fewer ready-made connectors than Deel or Remote, which can mean more manual data handling or custom API work depending on your stack.
What are Lano's genuine strengths and limitations?
Lano’s strengths cluster around cost efficiency and workforce aggregation, while weaknesses centre on platform depth and compliance assurance structures.
Pros
- Unusually low-priced payroll consolidation from EUR 3/employee/month. Selling data aggregation across multiple payroll providers as a standalone line is uncommon among the providers we reviewed.
- Competitive contractor pricing at EUR 19/month versus Deel’s USD 49 or Remote’s USD 29. The headline gap is real, though the euro saving depends on exchange rates, included services and payment fees.
- Account management included at standard pricing levels. Dedicated account managers at standard pricing.
- Partner replacement, provider-stated: Lano says it can move you between in-country partners where performance slips, without leaving the platform. Confirm the rights and terms in the contract.
Cons
- Partner-led entity model (Lano-stated) shifts day-to-day compliance to local partners. Lano states it uses no owned entities, so buyers needing direct contractual control should confirm the legal employer per country.
- Small public-review footprint: peer validation is thinner than competitors carrying thousands, and G2's page blocks automated reads so we cannot quote a count.
- Not a full HRIS, and no dedicated mobile app confirmed. Lano lists PTO and expense tracking, and markets no complete HRIS, so mobile self-service or performance management may need extra tools.
- Platform UX friction reported by some reviewers, including slower performance and less intuitive navigation than category leaders.
- Published rate is a starting point. Lano prices EOR per country and publishes only the entry rate, so insist on a per-country quote before you budget from €499.
These cons compound. A thin review footprint, no confirmed mobile app and country-variable pricing give your procurement team several objections to work through at once.
Who Is Lano Best For?
Lano creates the most value for mid-market European companies dealing with workforce fragmentation across multiple countries and employment types.
The platform solves specific pain points around data consolidation and cost management, and does not attempt broad workforce depth.
Choose Lano
- Mid-market companies with mixed workforces spanning EOR hires, contractors, and own-entity employees across multiple countries needing unified reporting.
- European companies prioritising cost where contractor pricing (EUR 19/month vs Deel’s USD 49) creates material annual savings.
- Companies consolidating payroll across multiple providers, EOR services, and own entities, where the consolidation layer (EUR 3/employee/month) is the main reason to look at Lano.
- Teams comfortable with partner-based compliance models, where coverage breadth and cost efficiency come first.
Look elsewhere if
- Compliance-first buyers requiring owned-entity EOR for direct contractual control over employment relationships.
- Teams needing full platform depth including dedicated HRIS, mobile apps, or extensive integration ecosystems.
- Procurement teams requiring extensive social proof before vendor selection (G2's Lano page blocks automated reads, so we cannot vouch for its rating or review count, and competitors carry thousands).
Picture a Finance team that loses the best part of a week each month stitching payroll data together across providers. Against EUR 150/month for a 50-person company on the consolidation layer, that can make a strong business case where the reconciliation pain is real.
Our own test is simpler than any of the above. If you can name the week your Finance team loses, Lano is worth a demo. If you cannot, you are buying a consolidation layer for a problem you have not measured, and the EOR alone will not justify the switch.
When should you consider a Lano alternative?
The right alternative depends on whether you prioritise compliance assurance, platform depth, or cost optimisation. Each major competitor addresses different aspects of Lano’s trade-offs.
Final Verdict: Is Lano Worth It?
The consolidation story is simple: if your Finance team burns a week each month reconciling payroll data, EUR 150/month for a 50-person team buys that week back. For a mid-market European company juggling EOR, contractor, and own-entity payroll across three or more systems, that is a strong return on a platform decision.
The partner entity model is the real risk. It is not a dealbreaker if Procurement is leading the buying case and cost is the deciding axis. It is a dealbreaker if Legal needs direct contractual control over the employing entity, because no amount of partner vetting gives you the same posture as an owned subsidiary.
We recommend Lano specifically for European mixed-workforce teams managing three or more payroll systems where Finance reconciliation is the named pain point. We do not recommend it for buyers who need owned-entity assurance or for procurement teams that require thousands of peer reviews to greenlight a vendor.
Buyers prioritising APAC or Americas expansion should verify Lano's active partner coverage, employing entity and service capacity in each required country before shortlisting it.
Lano FAQ
How much does Lano EOR cost?
Lano's EOR starts at EUR 499/employee/month, with volume discounts available on multi-country packages. The effective rate varies by country and some third-party reports cite higher figures in certain markets, so request a binding per-country quote before signing. Lano states SWIFT transfer fees of EUR 25/transaction apply where local payment networks are unavailable.
Does Lano use owned entities?
Lano states no. The model is partner-led across all 170+ countries it covers, as set out in the compliance section above. Because the legal employer varies by country, confirm it in writing.
If your Legal team requires owned-entity employment relationships, Remote and Oyster market greater owned-entity coverage than Lano, but buyers should confirm the employing entity country by country. Our guide to alternatives to Oyster covers the full shortlist, and our Remote vs Oyster comparison weighs those two providers on price and platform experience.
What makes Lano different from Deel or Remote?
Lano sells payroll consolidation as a standalone product from EUR 3/employee/month, aggregating data from Lano payroll and third-party providers into one dashboard. That is an unusual offer among the providers we reviewed.
Contractor pricing at EUR 19/month against Deel's USD 49 also creates material savings at scale. The trade-offs are the partner-led entity model, no full HRIS, no confirmed mobile app, and a small public-review footprint. G2's Lano page blocks automated reads, so we cannot vouch for its rating or its review count.
How fast is Lano onboarding?
Lano-stated EOR onboarding depends on the local partner and document turnaround, so ask for a country-specific plan. Payroll consolidation is driven by one dependency in particular: getting API credentials or clean file exports from your existing payroll providers, who are rarely keen to help you consolidate away from their platform.
Treat any single-week estimate with caution and confirm the timeline against your own systems.
What should you verify before choosing Lano?
Confirm the essentials in writing first: the per-country EOR rate, since €499 is only the entry price, the named legal employer and in-country partner, and the indemnity language tied to that partner. Add the DPA, subprocessor list and data-transfer safeguards, since Lano may act as controller or processor depending on the activity.
Also confirm whether your existing payroll providers will grant API access for the consolidation product, because implementation stalls without it.
Methodology and Disclosure
WhichPayroll is an independent comparison site for global payroll, EOR, and contractor management platforms. We do not sell these services and do not accept payment for editorial placement or reviews. We may earn a commission if you book a demo or request a quote through links on this page.
This review was produced by our editorial team and was not reviewed or approved by Lano before publication.
What changed on 4 and 5 August 2026
The biggest correction is our own. This review scored Lano 2.0 on security and told you the reason was that Lano does not name SOC 2 Type II on its own security page. Lano's security page names it four times.
Our own record was the problem, and it was worse than a blank. It marked the certification verified in one field and false in the field the score actually reads, so the page drew its evidence from one and its number from the other. Nothing in our checks compared the two until 5 August 2026, when one did and found ten records in that state across seven providers.
We then got the correction wrong as well, publishing 7.8 for about an hour by inventing a flat two points per certification. The score is 7.8 again today, which is a coincidence: the figure from that hour came from a scale we made up, and this one comes from the published rubric.
Our own methodology page sets the scale: SOC 2 Type II scores 2, ISO 27001 scores 2, a published GDPR agreement scores 1. Lano has 2 of 5, and the composite is 7.8.
Corrected against our published rubric, that row is 4.0 and the composite moves from 7.3 to 7.8. We have set the working out above.
On 5 August we took back a GDPR point we had awarded the day before. Lano refers to its data processing agreement but does not publish it, and the rubric asks for a published one. We applied the same test to Safeguard Global that day, so the alternative was to let the index mean two different things depending on which page you were reading.
Three competitor scores in the also-compared list were wrong: Remote showed 8.8 against a published 8.0, and Multiplier 8.2 against 8.5. Omnipresent was listed at 8.0 when it publishes no score and no longer trades independently. Papaya Global replaces it.
A 20% volume-discount cap came out. Lano says discounts exist and has never published a percentage.
We also briefly removed the 187-country denominator as unsourced, which was our error inside a correction. 187 is the published denominator in our own rubric, being the largest employment figure any provider states, and it is what produces Lano's 9.1 on coverage. It is restored.
We had buried Lano's currency contradiction as a hedge about the contractor product. It is not a contractor issue: the pricing page says 70+ currencies and every product page says 28. That is now stated as the contradiction it is.
The €25 SWIFT fee is now given as a ceiling, because Lano's currency-coverage page says "at most" and ties it to its Wallet. And we removed a G2 review count we cannot verify, since G2 blocks automated reads of Lano's page.
Data Sources
Lano pricing, product, security and privacy pages (accessed 28 July 2026) · G2 profile (blocks automated reads; no rating or count quoted) · Lano help-centre documentation and partner-model disclosures · German trade register filings.
Research Approach
Assessed across EOR and contractor-management capability, European entity-network depth, pricing transparency across the four product lines, platform usability, the customer-support model, and public user reviews on G2.
The 7.8/10 score is a composite of the four dimensions listed in the scorecard above, each scored on our provider disclosure index. See the linked methodology for how they are weighted.
We reviewed no demo, quote or contract for this assessment, and we did not run a paid pilot, so provider claims are labelled as Lano-stated and country-level legal-employer detail is treated as unverified.
Limitations
The public review sample is small, so it indicates themes only, and counts move over time. Lano's pages establish what the provider says it sells, not contractual terms, so treat pricing, coverage and partner claims as starting points to confirm in a proposal.
Tools to Evaluate Lano
Provider Coverage Lookup: check which countries each provider covers and compare coverage side by side. EOR vs Entity Break-Even Modeler: find the headcount at which setting up your own entity beats paying EOR fees. Employer Cost & Burden Calculator: turn a gross salary into a realistic total employer cost by country.
WhichPayroll Research used in this review
Pricing Transparency Index: how clearly this provider discloses pricing compared to the market. EOR Cost Benchmark: published EOR fee range and first-year cost context across 17 providers. Global Payroll Coverage Index: country breadth and owned-entity depth scored across providers.
Integration Depth Index: HR and finance integration coverage scored by provider. Security Disclosure Benchmark: SOC 2, ISO 27001, and public security disclosure ratings.