Costs and pricing
Part of Budgeting for a lead network with cash, VAT and labour kept separate
Comparing lead network pricing models by unit, whole-life cost and dispute rights
Compare lead-network pricing models on defined units, whole-life cost, acceptance evidence, dispute rights, incentives and non-financial gates.
What to take away
Lead generation networks differ mainly in where they place the billable meter and delivery risk.
- The billable unit defines a lead network pricing model more than the headline fee does.
- Bark and MyBuilder charge per lead or shortlist. Checkatrade and TrustATrader charge membership. Cognism and Apollo.io charge for data access.
- Each structure needs its own definition, evidence and remedy before any price comparison means anything.
- Acceptance charging aligns with buyer criteria only if rejection evidence is obtainable and fairly assessed.
- Whole-life cost includes internal validation, fulfilment and complaint work. It also includes privacy, security and exit work.
- Reopen the comparison whenever a supplier changes a unit, price basis, minimum or credit policy.
How the named networks meter a lead
This desk comparison closed on 5 September 2026. It compares eight named lead networks on billable unit, whole-life cost and dispute rights. The underlying structures remain subscription, submitted-record, validated-record, accepted-enquiry and managed service.
How the named networks meter a lead
Subscription
- Billable basis
- Access period
- Named users
- Checkatrade, TrustATrader
- Central evidence question
- Limits, users, services?
- Exposure
- Unused capacity
Submitted record
- Billable basis
- Recorded hand-off
- Named users
- Bark, Rated People
- Central evidence question
- Trace source, fields, time?
- Exposure
- Low-quality volume
Validated record
- Billable basis
- Passing written checks
- Named users
- Cognism, Apollo.io
- Central evidence question
- Who controls checks?
- Exposure
- Narrow validation
Accepted enquiry
- Billable basis
- Buyer acceptance
- Named users
- Unbiased, MyBuilder
- Central evidence question
- Rejection evidence obtainable?
- Exposure
- Disputes, gaming, delay
No provider, quote, result or account was reviewed, and no price was tested. The order follows the meter and is not a ranking. Revenue share and hybrids are contract variations, not separate winners.
Billable basis to define
- subscription, used by Checkatrade and TrustATrader
- access for a stated period and operating range
- submitted record, used by Bark and Rated People
- each recorded hand-off
- validated record, used by Cognism and Apollo.io
- each item passing written checks
- accepted enquiry, used by Unbiased and MyBuilder
- buyer acceptance under a deadline
- managed service, used by Checkatrade and agency retainers
- defined service or deliverable by period
Central evidence question
- subscription, used by Checkatrade and TrustATrader
- which limits, users and services are included?
- submitted record, used by Bark and Rated People
- can the buyer trace source, fields, time and recipient?
- validated record, used by Cognism and Apollo.io
- who controls the checks and their version?
- accepted enquiry, used by Unbiased and MyBuilder
- is rejection evidence obtainable and fairly assessed?
- managed service, used by Checkatrade and agency retainers
- which staff work, channels and outputs are promised?
Exposure to model
- subscription, used by Checkatrade and TrustATrader
- unused capacity and required add-ons
- submitted record, used by Bark and Rated People
- low-quality volume remains billable
- validated record, used by Cognism and Apollo.io
- narrow validation may ignore later fit
- accepted enquiry, used by Unbiased and MyBuilder
- disputes, gaming and delayed decisions
- managed service, used by Checkatrade and agency retainers
- change requests and buyer dependencies
The criteria are charge driver, evidence and incentive. Buyer work, disputes, forecasting and exit complete the list. Consumer-facing terms need additional review under the CMA's current unfair contract terms guidance, which addresses fairness and transparency but does not decide a particular network agreement.
| Named network | Billable unit | Typical price basis | Whole-life cost driver | Dispute right to check |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bark.com | credit spent per customer response | credits bought in bundles; a trade response often costs a few pounds to about £30 | writing replies, screening requests, managing credit balances | refund of unspent credits and the response window |
| MyBuilder | fee per shortlist | shortlist fees typically about £2 to £40 by job value and trade | quoting time, shortlist accuracy, account top-ups | credit when a job is cancelled or duplicated |
| Rated People | lead bought per job | trade leads typically £5 to £50 by trade and job value | callbacks, customer verification, lead volume | rejection window, credit evidence, claim deadline |
| Checkatrade | membership per period | membership commonly around £50 to £150 a month by trade, area and package | vetting, profile upkeep, review handling, minimum term | notice period, early exit refund, complaint route |
| TrustATrader | membership per period | annual membership commonly in the low hundreds to a few hundred pounds | background checks, insurance evidence, listing upkeep | renewal terms, cancellation window, vetting appeal |
| Unbiased | enquiry delivered to an adviser | per-enquiry fees vary by advice category and postcode | fact-find time, compliance checks, follow-up | credit for a duplicated or out-of-area enquiry |
| Cognism | annual data licence and seats | seat and volume pricing quoted per contract, not published as a list | data refresh, GDPR records, onboarding, unused seats | accuracy credits, opt-out handling, termination rights |
| Apollo.io | credit per email or phone export | free tier, then paid plans per user per month with credit allowances | enrichment time, bounce handling, plan overage | refund on failed exports, credit expiry |
A revenue share adds a definition of eligible revenue, attribution window, adjustments and audit rights. A hybrid combines several meters, so each component must remain visible.
Normalise the proposal
For every option, enter currency, VAT basis, contract dates, unit definition and quantity source. Add the minimum, ceiling, inclusions, exclusions and first-party quote date. Record the confidence level. Supplier-published figures would need an exact current plan or edition and UK applicability; this comparison quotes none.
Normalise the proposal
- Enter currency, VAT basis, contract dates
- Define unit and quantity source
- Add minimum, ceiling, inclusions, exclusions
- Record first-party quote date and confidence
- Calculate conditional cost from documented quantities
- Add internal validation, fulfilment, complaint work
- Add privacy, security, accessibility, legal, exit work
Calculate a conditional cost using buyer inputs:
supplier charge = fixed amount + sum(documented quantity x quoted unit amount) + one-off work + authorised changes - evidenced credits
The output uses the quote currency over its stated term. It is a cost sum with no denominator. Add internal validation, fulfilment and complaint work to the whole-life model.
Add privacy, security, accessibility, legal and exit work in a separate line. Keep invoiced tax distinct. HMRC's current VAT rates page is the official UK starting point, not a ruling on the invoice or recovery position.
Follow the incentive and exception route
Per-submission charging rewards delivery volume. Per-validation charging makes the rulebook and its change control important. Acceptance charging can align more closely with buyer criteria, but only if the buyer can review promptly and the seller cannot erase evidence. Managed service may bundle effort while hiding tasks that still sit with the buyer.
Incentive and exception route
Can both parties reproduce the meter?
Define duplicates, provenance, out-of-area, withdrawn, faults
Do not select this pricing mechanism
For each structure, ask who observes the meter and whether both parties can reproduce it. Define what happens to duplicates, missing provenance, out-of-area requests, withdrawn enquiries and service faults.
Define refund or credit eligibility, claim evidence and the claim deadline. Name the decision-maker, the appeal route and the expiry. Record whether the remedy changes current cash or only a later bill.
The ICO's data-broker buyer guidance requires more than accepting a provider's assurance about personal information. Commercial acceptance should not be mistaken for lawful basis, transparency, consent or PECR permission.
Decide with separate gates
Run low-use, expected-operation and stress quantities supplied by the buyer. Label the outputs planning scenarios, not forecasts or market benchmarks. Vary complaint effort, rejection, delay, staff time and exit effort alongside volume.
Separate gates before selection
- Meter can be audited
- Whole-life cost within authority
- Privacy and PECR approval
- Security evidence
- Accessible journeys
- Substantiated advertising and fair presentation
- Workable exit
Select a pricing mechanism only if its meter can be audited and the whole-life cost stays within the named authority. Independently require privacy and PECR approval, security evidence and accessible journeys. Also require substantiated advertising, fair consumer presentation and a workable exit. A cheaper model cannot offset a failure elsewhere.
Reopen the comparison when a unit, price basis or minimum changes. Also reopen on a change to the recipient network, service scope, credit policy or renewal term. Preserve the previous model and signed evidence so the buyer can distinguish a real saving from a shifted definition.
Before you act
- Define the billable unit and central evidence question for each named network.
- Normalise currency, VAT basis, contract dates, unit definition and quantity source.
- Calculate conditional cost from documented quantities and quoted unit amounts.
- Record refund eligibility, claim evidence, deadline, decision-maker and appeal route.
- Run low-use, expected-operation and stress quantities supplied by the buyer.
- Require separate privacy, PECR, security, accessibility and exit approval.
Common questions
Which lead networks does this comparison cover?
Bark, MyBuilder, Rated People, Checkatrade and TrustATrader cover UK trade work. Unbiased handles financial advice leads, while Cognism and Apollo.io sell B2B contact data. Each sits on a different billable unit: a credit, a shortlist fee, a job lead, a membership period or a data licence.
Why does the article say a cheaper pricing model cannot offset a failure elsewhere?
It says select a pricing mechanism only if its meter can be audited and the whole-life cost stays within the named authority. Privacy, PECR, security, accessibility, advertising and exit must be approved independently, so a lower price does not excuse a failure in any of those areas.
What should a buyer do when the supplier changes a unit or price basis?
Reopen the comparison when a unit, price basis or minimum changes. Also reopen on a change to the recipient network, service scope, credit policy or renewal term. Preserve the previous model and signed evidence so the buyer can distinguish a real saving from a shifted definition.
How should a buyer treat supplier-published figures in this comparison?
Supplier-published figures would need an exact current plan or edition and UK applicability, and this comparison quotes none. No provider, quote, price, result or account was reviewed, so outputs are planning scenarios rather than forecasts or market benchmarks.
