The Provider Coverage Lookup returns each provider’s coverage status (owned entity vs partner entity) and available service types for any combination of countries. Below is a representative output comparing three shortlisted providers across five target countries.
What Does the Coverage Lookup Return for Deel, Remote.com, and Rippling Across Five Countries?
Scenario: A company is planning to hire employees in the UK, Germany, USA, Canada, and Australia. They have shortlisted Deel, Remote, and Rippling and run the coverage lookup to see entity model and service availability for each country.
| Country | Deel | Remote | Rippling |
|---|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | Owned entity (own legal entity) EOR, payroll, contractor |
Owned entity (own legal entity) EOR, payroll, contractor |
Owned entity (own legal entity) EOR, payroll, contractor |
| Germany | Owned entity (own legal entity) EOR, payroll, contractor |
Owned entity (own legal entity) EOR, payroll, contractor |
Owned entity (own legal entity) EOR, payroll, contractor |
| United States | Owned entity (own legal entity) EOR, payroll, contractor |
Owned entity (own legal entity) EOR, payroll, contractor |
Owned entity (own legal entity) EOR, payroll, contractor |
| Canada | Owned entity (own legal entity) EOR, payroll, contractor |
Owned entity (own legal entity) EOR, payroll, contractor |
Owned entity (own legal entity) EOR, payroll, contractor |
| Australia | Owned entity (own legal entity) EOR, payroll, contractor |
Owned entity (own legal entity) EOR, payroll, contractor |
Owned entity (own legal entity) EOR, payroll, contractor |
What this output shows: All three providers have owned legal entities in all five target countries, no partner-entity risk for this particular country set. When the entity model is identical, the decision shifts to fee cost (use the EOR Fee Comparison tool), compliance depth, and platform integrations.
What Changes When a Partner Entity Appears?
The lookup also shows entity model, the distinction that matters most for risk. Here is how the same five countries look for Papaya Global, a provider that uses a mixed owned/partner model:
| Country | Papaya Global coverage status | Entity model | Services available |
|---|---|---|---|
| United States | Covered | Mixed (owned + partner) | EOR, payroll, contractor |
| Australia | Covered (partner) | Partner entity | EOR, payroll, contractor |
| United Kingdom | Not returned in dataset | — | — |
| Germany | Not returned in dataset | — | — |
| Canada | Not returned in dataset | — | — |
Why Does the Entity Model Matter?
Three practical consequences of the owned vs partner distinction:
Liability chain: With a partner entity, Papaya Global acts as an intermediary. The local partner entity is the legal employer on record. In a dispute or redundancy situation, your employees’ rights may depend on the partner’s financial position, not just Papaya’s.
Payslip and bank details: Partner-model employees often see a different employer name on payslips than the EOR platform’s brand. This creates occasional confusion during onboarding and can affect reference letters and visa sponsorship paperwork.
Data residency: Some partner entities process payroll data locally rather than through the platform’s centralised system. For clients with GDPR or cross-border data transfer obligations, this adds a layer to your compliance mapping.
The lookup tool returns entity model alongside coverage status for every provider-country combination in the database. Filtering by “owned entity only” narrows the shortlist to providers where the platform is directly the employer of record in every target market.