24 Jan 2026•10 min read

Flat-Fee vs Per-User Leave Software: Complete Comparison

Choosing between flat-fee and per-user pricing for leave software isn't about which model is "better" — it's about which model matches your team's adoption reality, headcount trajectory, and compliance needs.

This guide provides cost curves, worked examples, and a decision checklist to help you pick a pricing model that stays fair as you grow.

TL;DR Answer

Flat-fee and per-user pricing can both be rational — the best choice depends on how your team actually uses leave approvals, reporting, and access. Flat-fee tends to win when you want company-wide adoption and predictable budgeting; per-user tends to win when only a small set of people need access. Use the cost curves and checklist below to pick a model that stays fair as headcount changes.

Q: What do "flat-fee" and "per-user" pricing mean for leave software?

A: These are the two dominant pricing models in the leave software market:

Flat-fee (unlimited users): You pay a single monthly or annual fee that covers unlimited users across your organization. Cost is predictable and doesn't increase with headcount.
Per-user (per-seat): You pay for each user who has access to the system. According to Chargebee's SaaS pricing guide, per-user pricing charges customers based on the number of users, making it a straightforward model that scales directly with adoption.

Common hybrids: Many vendors also offer hybrid models — a base platform fee plus incremental per-user charges — or tiered pricing where you pay a fixed rate for headcount bands (e.g., €X for 1-10 employees, €Y for 11-25).

Q: Why pricing model matters more for leave than people think

A: Leave management isn't just an HR convenience; it's a compliance requirement with records retention obligations. ACAS notes that workers in the UK are entitled to 5.6 weeks of statutory paid holiday per year, and under working time regulations, employers must keep records for at least 2 years.

The pricing model you choose directly affects:

Adoption breadth: Who can actually submit requests, see balances, and get approvals in the system?
Records completeness: If only some people use the tool, where are the other records? (Spreadsheets? Email?)
Dispute prevention: A single source of truth only works if everyone is using it.
Cost predictability: Can you budget accurately as you hire, or will costs balloon unexpectedly?

In short: the tool only helps if people can actually use it. Pricing friction often translates to adoption friction.

Q: Comparison table — pricing models compared

A: Here's how the main pricing models stack up:

Model	How it's billed	Predictability	Scales with headcount?	Adoption effect	Best for	Watch-outs
Flat-fee unlimited	Fixed monthly/annual	Very high	No	Encourages broad rollout	Company-wide adoption, predictable budgets	May overpay if only few users needed
Per-user/per-seat	Price × active seats	Medium	Yes	May limit seats to control cost	Role-based access, limited user base	Seat rationing, shared logins risk
Per-active-user	Price × users who logged in	Low	Yes	Variable monthly cost	Seasonal teams, contractors	Budgeting harder; gaming risk
Tiered by headcount band	Fixed per tier	High within tier	Step function	Broad adoption within tier	Growing teams with clear bands	Price jump at band edges
Base fee + per-user	Base + (price × seats)	Medium	Partially	Balances both concerns	Hybrid needs	Still complexity in billing
Usage/outcome-adjacent	Based on usage metric	Very low	Depends	Rare for leave tools	Not common in leave space	Hard to predict cost

Q: Cost curves — when does per-user overtake flat-fee? (illustrative)

A: Here are illustrative cost curves to help you visualize the break-even point. These are examples only, not market prices.

Headcount	Per-user @ €4/user	Per-user @ €6/user	Per-user @ €8/user	Flat-fee example (€120)	Notes
3	€12	€18	€24	€120	Per-user much cheaper at this size
5	€20	€30	€40	€120	Still per-user advantage
10	€40	€60	€80	€120	Approaching parity
15	€60	€90	€120	€120	Break-even at €8/user
20	€80	€120	€160	€120	Break-even at €6/user
30	€120	€180	€240	€120	Break-even at €4/user
50	€200	€300	€400	€120	Flat-fee clear winner at scale

Break-even formula: The headcount where per-user equals flat-fee is:

breakEvenHeadcount = flatFeePrice / perUserPrice

In the example above with €120 flat-fee and €4/user: 120 / 4 = 30 employees.

Q: Adoption effects — what behaviour does each model encourage?

A: Pricing models shape behaviour, sometimes in ways that aren't immediately obvious:

Flat-fee: Encourages broad rollout because there's no incremental cost per user. Teams tend to add everyone to the system, creating a true single source of truth.
Per-user: Encourages role-based access. If usage is genuinely limited to HR and managers, this can be cost-effective. However, it can also lead to "seat rationing" where teams limit access to save money, even when broader adoption would improve compliance.

Chargebee's research notes that per-user pricing can lead to organizations limiting the number of users to control costs, and in some cases, sharing login credentials — both of which undermine audit trails.

OpenView Partners observes that seat-based pricing doesn't scale with customer value when automation increases, meaning as tools become more efficient, the per-seat model can misalign with the actual value delivered.

Pattern	Why it happens	Risk	Mitigation
Limiting seats	Trying to control per-user cost	Approvals happen outside system, no audit trail	Evaluate flat-fee or hybrid model
Shared logins	Avoiding seat charges	Can't track who approved what; compliance breach	Enforce unique logins; price model that allows it
Slack/DM approvals	Managers don't have system access	No structured record; disputes later	Give managers access; enforce workflow
Shadow spreadsheets	Tool doesn't cover all use cases or access limited	Data split across tools; errors compound	Single source of truth rule; full access
Delayed visibility	Only HR sees full calendar, teams work blind	Delivery conflicts; late discovery of coverage gaps	Company-wide read access; calendar views

Q: When per-user pricing is the better fit (be explicit)

A: Per-user pricing can be the rational choice when:

Only managers and HR need access: If employees submit leave requests via email or form, and only 3–5 people need to approve and report, per-user pricing can be significantly cheaper.
Strong role separation: Your workflow genuinely doesn't require employees to log in; a centralized team handles all data entry and reporting.
You want costs to track seats closely: If your budget is per-seat sensitive and you're comfortable managing access carefully, this model gives you that control.
You can avoid shadow process risk: You've designed clear workflows that prevent managers from approving via Slack or using shared logins.

How to make per-user work:

Document access rules clearly: who gets a seat, who doesn't, and why.
Prohibit shared logins explicitly in your policy.
Standardize approval workflows so all approvals happen in the system.
Regularly audit for workarounds (Slack approvals, spreadsheet tracking).

Q: When flat-fee pricing is the better fit (be explicit)

A: Flat-fee pricing tends to be the better fit when:

You want everyone requesting leave in the same place: Employees submit requests, see their balances, and check team calendars directly.
You want predictable budgeting as you hire: Cost doesn't change as you grow from 10 to 20 to 30 people, making financial planning simpler.
You want adoption without seat friction: No need to decide who "deserves" access or manage seat limits; everyone gets in.
You want cross-team visibility: For delivery planning, capacity management, or resource allocation, having everyone's leave visible in one place is operationally valuable.
You're scaling quickly: If you expect to double headcount in the next year, flat-fee protects you from cost surprises.

This model is particularly common for teams that treat leave management as a company-wide operational system, not just an HR back-office tool. See Zotrack's flat-fee approach as an example.

Q: Before vs after — what changes when the pricing model matches reality?

A: Here are concrete outcomes when teams align their pricing model with their adoption goals:

Scenario	Before (mismatch)	After (right model + policy)	Outcome
Leave approval	Manager not in system (seat cost), approves via Slack	Manager has access, approves in-system	Full audit trail; no disputes
Team visibility	Only HR sees calendar; teams ask via Slack	Everyone can view team calendar	Self-service; fewer interruptions to HR
Conflict detection	Discover two critical people off same week on Friday before	System flags conflicts at request time	No last-minute delivery panic
Budgeting	Per-user cost jumps from €40 to €160 as team grows 10→20	Flat-fee stays constant; cost per person drops	Predictable budgeting; no surprises

Q: Spreadsheet and "shadow tracking" — where errors creep in

A: When pricing friction limits tool adoption, teams often fall back to spreadsheets or hybrid processes. Research on spreadsheet errors is unambiguous.

The paper What we know about spreadsheet errors notes: The evidence is overwhelming that spreadsheet errors are common and often costly. The Dartmouth literature review similarly documents that almost all large spreadsheets contain errors, particularly in formulas and data entry.

Practical controls if staying on spreadsheets:

Single owner: Only one person has write access.
Locked formula cells: Prevent accidental overwrites.
Change log: Track who changed what and when.
Quarterly audit: Spot-check 5% of records against source documents.

Better yet: use a tool that serves as a single source of truth, ensuring compliance records are complete and searchable. This is one reason leave management systems are worth the investment for growing teams.

Decision checklist (copy/paste)

Use this checklist to evaluate which pricing model fits your team. Work through each step and note your answers.

Confirm leave rules and calendar: Document your leave year start/end dates and bank holiday policy.
Identify who must submit requests: Everyone? Or just a subset via managers/HR?
Identify who must approve: List every person who needs approval access (managers, HR, ops).
Define reporting needs: Team calendar? Upcoming leave? Conflict detection? Who needs to see these reports?
Define compliance record needs: ACAS requires 2 years of working time records. Will the tool be your source of truth?
Count "real users" vs "whole company" goal: If only 5 people need access out of 20 employees, per-user might work. If you want all 20 in the system, flat-fee is likely better.
Model cost at different headcounts: Use the illustrative table above. Calculate costs at 3, 5, 10, 20, 30 employees.
Decide the risk you can tolerate: Can you afford seat rationing risks (shared logins, shadow processes)? Or is overspend risk worse?
Run a 1-week pilot workflow: Simulate request → approval → reporting end-to-end. Does the pricing model support the workflow you actually want?

Simple scoring:

Mostly company-wide adoption: Flat-fee or tiered likely better
Mostly limited roles (HR + managers only): Per-user likely better
Mixed needs: Consider hybrid (base fee + per-user) or headcount bands

Q: Vendor evaluation checklist

A: Beyond pricing, here are the feature and compliance criteria to evaluate:

Criterion	Why it matters	Questions to ask	Evidence to look for
Approvals & audit trail	Compliance and dispute prevention	Can we see who approved what and when?	Timestamped approval log, exportable records
Reporting	Visibility into team capacity and conflicts	Can we see upcoming leave and overlaps?	Calendar views, conflict warnings, export options
Integrations	Reduces manual data entry	Does it sync with our calendar/Slack/payroll?	Native integrations or API access
SSO & permissions	Security and role-based access	Can we control who sees what?	Role definitions, SSO support, permission levels
Mobile access	Requests and approvals on the go	Can managers approve from mobile?	Native app or responsive web app
Multi-location calendars	Different regions = different bank holidays	Can we handle UK + IE teams?	Per-location calendar support
Records retention	ACAS requires 2 years; you may need longer	How long do you retain data? Can we export?	Data retention policy, export options

Q: A data-backed PR angle (credible, not salesy)

A: If you're writing about this topic for press or content, here are factual anchor points:

Micro businesses dominate the UK: House of Commons Library data shows that 96% of UK businesses are small (0–49 employees), making pricing predictability critical for budget-constrained teams.
Statutory holiday entitlement: ACAS confirms workers are entitled to 5.6 weeks of statutory paid holiday per year, and proper tracking systems help ensure compliance.
SaaS spend trends: According to Zylo's 2025 SaaS Management Index, the average SaaS spend per employee continues to rise, making cost model transparency more important than ever. The SBI/Price Intelligently report notes that while usage-based pricing is growing, it still represents a minority of SaaS models.

"The best pricing model isn't about which one is inherently better — it's about matching the model to your team's actual adoption needs and headcount trajectory. Flat-fee and per-user pricing can both be rational; the key is choosing the one that removes friction from the workflow you actually want."

Q: FAQ

1) Is flat-fee leave software always cheaper?

No. Flat-fee is cheaper when many people need access; per-user is cheaper when only a few roles need the system. The break-even point depends on headcount and per-user price.

2) When does per-user pricing make more sense?

Per-user pricing works well when only managers and HR need system access, when role separation is strong, and when you want costs to track seats closely.

3) What are the hidden costs of seat limiting?

Seat limiting can lead to shared logins, managers approving via Slack instead of the system, shadow spreadsheets, and delayed visibility into leave conflicts.

4) Can we use a hybrid model (base fee + per user)?

Yes. Many vendors offer hybrid models with a base fee for core features plus per-user charges. This can balance predictability with cost control.

5) What minimum records should we keep for leave and working time?

ACAS guidance requires working time records be kept for at least 2 years. This includes leave taken, dates, and approval records.

6) How do we avoid spreadsheet drift if we stay lightweight?

Assign a single owner, lock formula cells, maintain a change log, and run quarterly audits. Better yet, use a tool that serves as a single source of truth.

A simple option if you want predictable costs + company-wide adoption

For teams that want everyone in the system without worrying about seat costs, Zotrack offers a flat-fee model that covers unlimited users. It's designed for predictable budgeting as you grow, with leave management, expense tracking, and invoicing in one place. Check our transparent pricing to see if it fits your needs.

References

Last updated: 24 Jan 2026