toll
Paid middle layer
Comparison sites are not neutral utilities. They sit between customer and supplier and charge to be in the transaction flow.
Lowest-commission roadmap
Comparison sites do not lower prices.
Comparison sites do not lower prices.
They add to them.
Our goal is to reach the lowest-commission model possible so consumer costs come down. To get there, we are building tracking and traction first: a single source of truth for best-detected deals across major comparison sites, then direct provider links as leverage grows.
In one line
Track first.
Lower commission next.
- check_circleTrack best-detected deals across major comparison sites.
- check_circleBuild traction and data credibility with consumers.
- check_circleUse leverage to secure direct provider links on lower commission.
The hidden cost is not hidden to your bill
The model is simple: if a platform is paid for each sale, that fee becomes part of supplier acquisition cost. Over time, those costs are recovered through market pricing.
currency_exchange
Commission does not vanish
Supplier-funded commissions are real costs. They do not disappear at checkout because they are paid on the supplier side.
trending_up
Costs feed back into price
Higher customer-acquisition cost flows back into pricing decisions across the market, affecting users and non-users alike.
Why the model is broken
Visibility is useful. But visibility is not the same as lower market prices. When the platform earns more by taking a cut on each sale, incentives drift away from reducing the transaction cost.
The issue is not comparison itself. The issue is comparison funded by supplier commissions that reward extraction.
What users assume
"More comparison always means lower prices."
What actually matters
Who gets paid, how much, and from which side.
Incentive mismatch
If platform revenue grows with per-sale extraction, the platform is naturally optimised to monetise the transaction harder, not make the transaction cheaper.
Why more comparison sites do not fix it
More platforms can mean more interfaces. It does not automatically remove the extraction layer underneath.
Single platform
1 Layer
One paid middleman adds one supplier-side cost layer.
Many platforms
Many Layers
Competition between middlemen does not erase the fact that the model is still commission extraction.
Bottom line
Model > Marketing
The core business model determines whether cost is being reduced or inserted.
What makes us different
Our end state is a lowest-commission model. The route is deliberate: track the market clearly, earn traction, then convert that leverage into direct provider relationships with lower extraction.
Lowest-commission target
We are optimizing toward the lowest sustainable commission structure.
Single source of truth first
Today we aggregate best-detected deals across major comparison sites in one place.
Tracking + traction engine
Clear tracking quality builds user trust, repeat usage, and market leverage.
Direct provider path
With leverage, we can negotiate direct links and reduce unnecessary middle-layer commission.
Traditional model
Take a bigger cut from the sale.
Our model
Track clearly now, then take less so customers pay less.
How we get there
A lowest-commission end state is not claimed, it is built. Our sequence is Track, Prove, Partner.
Track
Single source of truth
Aggregate best-detected deals across major comparison sites with transparent, repeatable tracking.
Prove
Build traction
Turn tracking quality into adoption, confidence, and evidence that consumers value a clean market view.
Partner
Lower commission directly
Use that leverage to secure direct provider relationships and move toward the lowest-commission model.
What we believe
A comparison service should make the end price better, not worse.
If a platform adds cost, branding cannot make that consumer-first.
The business model is the product.
Better tracking. Stronger leverage. Lower commission. Lower final price.
Research-informed, consumer-focused
This page is informed by academic and regulatory work on digital comparison tools and price comparison websites, including evidence that platform commissions can be passed through into retail pricing and that platform structure and incentives matter for outcomes. Our current product step is best-detected coverage across major comparison sites, while building leverage for direct provider partnerships.
- [1] Ronayne, D. (University of Warwick, Working Paper): analysis of PCW fees, pass-through, and consumer welfare under single and multiple PCWs.
- [2] CMA, Digital Comparison Tools Market Study and appendices: evidence on DCT intermediation, commission effects, and potential retail-price implications under certain conditions.
- [3] UKRN, Price Comparison Websites Report: cross-sector overview of PCW incentives, consumer behavior, and regulatory concerns around transparency and outcomes.
There are two ways to run comparison.
One model extracts from the transaction. The other works to make the transaction cheaper. We are building that path through tracking, traction, and lower-commission direct links.