Show the evidence.
Keep the uncertainty.

Independent by design

EOR Shortlist is free to use. Providers cannot buy placement, a higher position or a favourable verdict. The directory defaults to alphabetical order. There are no paid referral links or lead forms in this release.

Follow the claim to the source

Provider pages are primary sources for advertised services and prices. Government sources lead on employment requirements. Reviews, forums and news help identify questions and investigate company context. A provider statement is labelled as such; a review is an account of one experience, not a verified finding.

We record source URLs, publisher, collection date, publication date where available, access limitations and commercial context. Unknown information stays unknown. Conflicting statements remain visible until resolved.

Prices need a basis

We separate the EOR service fee from salary, statutory employer costs, benefits, deposits, exchange rates and optional services. We preserve currency, billing period, annual commitments and stated exclusions. The benchmark compares advertised USD fees without inventing currency conversions or treating an unconfirmed price as zero.

Fit labels and public research scores

“Consider for” labels are editorial interpretations of an evidenced feature or service model. Each profile explains the reason and the trade-off. They do not mean that we have independently tested service quality. The three pilot providers now have editorial scores based on public documents and contextual customer accounts. Seven weighted categories show the reasons, evidence confidence and remaining unknowns. Private quotes, sales calls and hands-on trials are not prerequisites. Country assessments are stored separately as that research expands.

Reviews and company history

We preserve reviewer context, dates, platform and incentive disclosures. We deduplicate matching accounts and syndicated stories. Small or selected samples do not establish the frequency of a problem. Vendor-authored comparisons and affiliated publishers are disclosed.

Allegations, procedural court decisions, findings, company responses and current outcomes belong in separate fields. We do not treat an unresolved allegation as a fact. A later update must remain connected to the earlier account.

One evaluation framework

We assess country fit, full cost, payroll, support, platform, employee experience, contract responsibilities, leaving, security and provider resilience. The pilot has 234 captured review records read and classified against these areas, including positive and critical accounts. Product scope, date, incentives, provider replies and known outcomes remain attached to each account. A request for improvement is distinguished from a reported incident.

Reviews are first-hand accounts hosted by third-party platforms; they are not our own customer interviews. Private deal and ticket summaries are a different source. Their anonymised paraphrases remove identifying details, preserve commercial-source context and group repeat snippets from the same apparent case. We have not inspected the original call recordings or full transcripts.

Relevant praise, complaints and documented outcomes inform our assessment as well as what buyers should ask and demonstrate. They do not establish complaint rates or current feature availability. Platform claims, customer reports, provider demonstrations and independent tests are labelled separately; no hands-on platform tests have yet been completed.

The publication gate

The current release is a research preview. The project owner is the initial editorial approver. Facts, fit labels, articles and sensitive company context require a named approval before publication. Country guidance also requires a qualified local reviewer. Collection jobs cannot approve or publish content.

Approved releases retain their original facts and evidence. A refresh produces a new version; switching the active release updates the profile, comparison and article references together.

Research scope and limits

Deel, Remote and Remofirst form the initial pilot. They provide contrasting published price points, service models and accessible country evidence. Seven country briefs span Europe, Asia and the Americas. This is an evidence-led starting set; demand has not yet been validated with paid search-volume data.

The initial research-data budget is capped at £100. No paid data has been purchased. The pilot used the connected collection accounts under bounded requests; no additional research-data purchase was needed. The pilot must pass quality and cost review before deeper research expands.

Keeping the evidence current

Planned review cadence: pricing monthly; other provider facts quarterly; material company news weekly. Dates beside the facts show when sources were last checked, not a guarantee that terms remain unchanged.

After launch, we will record search discovery, a repeatable sample of AI citations and recommendations, and anonymous comparison use. The first assessment is planned for 16 weeks after the approved public launch.