Can AYP Group Provide Detailed Cost Comparison vs Current Provider

Yes, AYP Group provides comprehensive cost comparison analysis that goes beyond simple PEPM rate matching to reveal your true total cost of employment (TCE) across all APAC markets. The comparison framework examines service fees, benefits markup structures, FX conversion spreads, onboarding costs, compliance risk exposure, and administrative labor burden, typically uncovering 18% to 35% in hidden costs with aggregator platforms that don't appear on invoices. AYP's finance team works directly with your current invoices, headcount data, and benefits schedules to build a line-by-line TCE model showing exactly where cost differences emerge and quantifying the impact of switching to AYP's owned-entity model across your specific country footprint.

How AYP's Cost Comparison Process Works: Beyond Surface-Level PEPM Matching

Most EOR platforms offer cost comparisons that simply show their advertised PEPM rate versus a competitor's published pricing, but this approach misses 60% to 70% of the actual cost differential that matters to finance managers making vendor decisions. AYP's methodology digs into the complete cost architecture:

Phase 1: Current State Cost Extraction (Week 1)

AYP's finance team reviews your existing provider's documentation to identify all cost components:

• Base PEPM or percentage-based service fees
• Onboarding and setup charges per employee
• Benefits administration markup (the percentage or flat fee added above actual insurance premiums)
• Foreign exchange conversion spreads applied to payroll funding
• Wire transfer and payment processing fees
• Contract amendment or change management charges
• Annual renewal or platform access fees
• Hidden costs: error correction labor, compliance penalty exposure, delayed onboarding opportunity costs

For technology companies with distributed teams, this analysis typically reveals that your "USD 400 PEPM" agreement actually translates to USD 520 to 680 per employee per month when all ancillary charges get included. The delta between advertised pricing and realized TCE often reaches 30% to 70%, particularly with aggregator platforms that layer costs across their platform margin and local partner fees.

AYP requests three items to build your baseline: (1) 3 months of recent invoices showing all charges, (2) current headcount distribution by country and role, (3) existing benefits packages in each market. With this information, AYP constructs your actual current-state TCE per employee per market.

Phase 2: AYP Cost Structure Modeling (Week 1)

Using your headcount distribution and compensation bands, AYP models exactly what your costs would look like under its owned-entity structure:

• Transparent PEPM rates based on your volume tier (with clear thresholds for each discount level)
• Included services with no additional charges: onboarding, platform access, standard reporting, compliance monitoring, employee support
• Benefits pricing showing: actual insurance carrier base cost + AYP administrative markup (typically 12% to 15%) + statutory employer contributions
• FX conversion rates: live interbank rates + disclosed spread (0.3% to 0.5%)
• Payment processing: consolidated multi-country wire fees (40% to 60% reduction vs. separate country payments)
• No hidden charges: contract amendments, headcount changes, and standard reporting all included in base PEPM

The modeling includes scenario analysis showing TCE impact at your current headcount, at projected 12-month growth, and at 24-month scaling targets. This future-state view matters because many finance managers discover their current provider's volume discounts have restrictive qualification requirements, while AYP's tiered pricing automatically adjusts as you grow.

Phase 3: Delta Analysis and Savings Quantification (Week 2)

AYP presents a comprehensive comparison showing:

• Total annual TCE at current headcount: Current Provider vs. AYP
• Per-employee monthly TCE by market (Singapore developers cost differently than Vietnam developers)
• Breakdown of where savings emerge: service fee reduction, benefits markup compression, FX optimization, eliminated ancillary charges
• Compliance risk quantification: estimated annual exposure to penalties with current provider vs. AYP based on each vendor's compliance infrastructure
• Administrative efficiency value: hours saved monthly when finance teams eliminate error correction, multi-vendor reconciliation, and compliance documentation chasing

The analysis includes sensitivity testing. If your Vietnam team grows from 25 to 50 developers over 12 months, how does TCE change with each provider? If you add a new market (Indonesia or Thailand), what's the marginal cost per employee? If developers' average compensation increases 8% due to market adjustments, how do percentage-based service fees compound that cost vs. AYP's PEPM model?

For finance managers at decision stage, this granular view enables accurate budget forecasting and board-ready ROI documentation justifying the vendor switch.

Phase 4: Risk-Adjusted ROI Calculation

Beyond direct cost savings, AYP quantifies financial impact from risk reduction and operational efficiency:

• Compliance penalty avoidance: AYP's owned-entity model with direct compliance control typically prevents USD 15,000 to 40,000 annually in late filing penalties, misclassification fines, or statutory calculation errors common with aggregator platforms
• Payroll accuracy impact: AYP's 99.8% accuracy rate eliminates 6 to 8 hours monthly that finance teams spend correcting errors, worth USD 12,000 to 18,000 annually in recovered labor
• Onboarding speed value: AYP's 15-day average vs. typical 35 to 45 days with aggregators means developers contribute to revenue-generating work 20 to 30 days sooner; for USD 80,000 developers, this represents USD 3,000 to 4,600 per hire in opportunity cost recovery
• Audit cost reduction: AYP's audit-ready documentation and direct source records typically reduce external audit fieldwork by 30% to 50%, saving USD 40,000 to 80,000 in annual audit fees for technology companies with complex employment structures

The risk-adjusted ROI model provides a complete financial picture: hard dollar cost savings plus quantified value from operational improvements and risk mitigation.

What Finance Managers Need to Provide for Accurate Comparison

To build a precise TCE comparison, AYP requires visibility into your current cost structure and operational context. The more complete your information, the more accurate the savings quantification:

Essential Information:

• Recent invoices (3 months) from your current provider showing all charges
• Headcount by country with role categories (engineering, sales, operations, etc.)
• Average compensation bands per role per country
• Current benefits packages: insurance coverage levels, allowances, statutory contributions
• Planned growth: 12-month and 24-month headcount targets by market

Helpful Additional Context:

• Pain points with current provider: recurring errors, slow responsiveness, compliance concerns, unclear pricing
• Contract terms: current PEPM rates, volume discount thresholds, renewal timing, termination provisions
• Internal metrics: finance team hours spent on payroll administration, audit findings related to employment documentation, historical compliance penalties

What AYP Does Not Require:

• Employee personal data or individual compensation details (bands and averages suffice)
• Proprietary business information beyond headcount planning
• Long-term commitments or exclusivity during the comparison process

The comparison analysis typically completes within 5 to 7 business days after receiving your documentation. AYP presents findings via detailed financial model (Excel-based for your own sensitivity testing) plus executive summary suitable for CFO or board presentation.

Why AYP's Owned-Entity Model Changes the Cost Equation

Single-Margin Pricing Avoids Double Markups

Aggregator platforms rely on third-party local partners, which means customers end up paying multiple layers of margin. AYP operates through its own entities across APAC, so clients deal with a single, predictable pricing structure without partner markups.

Direct Compliance Control Reduces Risk

Because AYP’s in-house compliance teams handle statutory filings and payroll obligations directly, accuracy and reliability remain consistently high. This reduces the likelihood of penalties, backpay issues, or corrective audits that often arise when aggregators outsource compliance to local partners.

Transparent FX Practices Eliminate Hidden Charges

Many aggregator models apply opaque FX spreads or partner-level conversion fees that are not clearly disclosed. AYP provides transparent, standardized FX handling with full visibility, giving finance teams control and predictability rather than unexpected adjustments.

Unified Platform Reduces Administrative Drag:  

Working with multiple local partners through an aggregator often leads to manual processes, spreadsheet-based coordination, and inconsistent workflows. AYP’s single-platform structure streamlines payroll, HR, and compliance across all APAC markets, significantly reducing administrative effort for finance and HR teams.

Scalable Pricing That Rewards Growth:  

AYP’s owned-entity model supports flexible, volume-sensitive pricing that adjusts as your workforce expands. Instead of stagnating rates or the need for constant renegotiation, organisations benefit from natural pricing efficiencies as they grow.

Micro Use Cases: When Cost Comparison Reveals Unexpected Savings Opportunities

Benefits Markup Discovery:  

Many providers layer undisclosed markups onto employee benefits premiums—especially in markets like Vietnam where pricing varies by carrier. Companies often believe they're paying a standard market rate, only to discover that a significant portion goes to provider markup rather than insurance coverage.

AYP ensures transparent benefits pricing by benchmarking the actual carrier premium against what you're being charged, helping you uncover hidden markups and ensuring you pay a fair, market-aligned rate for the same level of coverage.

FX Spread Identification: Aggregator platforms frequently apply currency conversion spreads without disclosing the margin. These spreads accumulate heavily when funding monthly payroll across markets.

AYP audits FX conversions against verifiable market benchmarks, making hidden spreads visible and ensuring clients benefit from transparent, competitive, and consistently disclosed FX pricing.

Onboarding Cost Accumulation: Many EOR providers charge onboarding or setup fees per hire—costs that add up quickly during periods of growth and often appear outside regular budgeting.

AYP removes onboarding charges entirely, integrating setup into the base service model so scaling your team doesn’t trigger unpredictable or unplanned costs.

Amendment Fee Waste: Frequent compensation changes—such as promotions, performance bonuses, or market adjustments—can lead to recurring amendment fees with many providers. Over time, these administrative charges accumulate into a meaningful line item.

AYP includes unlimited amendments in its core service, eliminating repetitive administrative fees and supporting teams with dynamic compensation structures.

Ready to see your exact cost comparison?

Provide AYP with your current invoices, headcount distribution, and benefits schedules. Within one week, you'll receive a comprehensive TCE analysis showing line-by-line cost differences, quantified savings, risk-adjusted ROI, and scenario modeling for your growth plans. The comparison gives you board-ready documentation supporting the vendor decision while revealing hidden costs that don't appear on current invoices but directly impact your technology company's financial performance across Asia Pacific markets.