Vendor Pricing Comparison
A TCO-based pricing analysis for localization managers. Real cost breakdowns, hidden fee identification, and the data you need to build the business case for switching vendors.
See the hidden costs ↓The per-word rate tells you almost nothing about what localization will actually cost. Here is how three pricing models compare when you account for total cost of ownership.
Technology fee + per-word rate + PM overhead + rush premiums + review management fees + minimum charges. Discount tiers exist but qualification thresholds keep moving. Actual cost is 30 to 50% above the quoted per-word rate.
Every renewal adds new fee categories. "Platform upgrades," "enhanced reporting," "dedicated support tiers" — each one a new line item on top of the base rate you negotiated.
Lowest per-word rates on paper. But you are the project manager, the QA team, and the escalation path. Coordination time costs more than the translation itself. No terminology management, no consistency across translators, no scalability for peak periods.
Every new translator means re-onboarding. Every urgent request means scrambling for availability. The savings disappear into your team's calendar.
Translation + QA + Coordination. That is the complete invoice. Retainer guarantees dedicated team access and sub-minute response. Volume pricing reflects actual content processed. No hidden fees, no surprise line items, no "technology access" costs.
Mango chose this model over TransPerfect — the "red carpet" treatment at predictable cost. Same team for 12+ years. No rotation, no re-onboarding. The invoice matches the quote, every time.
Building a business case for switching vendors requires real numbers. Here is the TCO framework and the metrics that make it undeniable.
Per-word rate + hidden fees (30-50% markup) + internal review time (15-25 hrs/week at your salary cost) + revision cycle time (5-15% of all work) + PM rotation re-onboarding (6-12 weeks/year) + emergency management.
When you calculate real TCO, the "more expensive" specialist partner is often 15 to 30% cheaper. The per-word rate is not the cost. The total cost of ownership is the cost.
15-30% real savings Complete TCO viewSame team for 12+ years (no rotation costs). <1% revision rate vs. 5-15% industry average (internal review time near zero). 98.7% on-time delivery (emergency management near zero). Sub-minute response as standard (no portal lag). No hidden fees (invoice matches quote).
These are not aspirational targets. They are published, auditable metrics from long-term client relationships.
<1% revisions 98.7% on-time 12+ yearsNo add-ons, no premium tiers, no surprise line items. Everything listed here is part of the standard engagement.
Same linguists and PM for years. No rotation, no re-onboarding. Sub-minute response. Complete project coordination included. Your team does not change because of internal vendor reshuffling.
<1% revision rate (published, auditable). Terminology management. Style guide enforcement. ISO 9001 + ISO 17100 certified. All QA included — not a premium add-on.
Integration with your tools. Performance dashboards. Scalable capacity. Monthly reporting. No "technology access" fees, no "reporting" add-ons. Operations support is part of the service, not a separate invoice.
Get a transparent proposal based on your actual content mix.
Request a Custom Pricing ProposalStart with your annual invoice total, then add: internal review hours multiplied by your team's hourly salary cost, PM rotation re-onboarding time (estimate 2 to 4 weeks per rotation at your hourly rate), revision cycle time for both your team and the vendor, and any technology or platform access fees billed separately. Most localization managers find their real TCO is 30 to 50% above the invoiced amount.
The retainer guarantees dedicated team access, sub-minute response times, terminology management, and project coordination. The variable component covers actual translation and QA volume processed. There are no additional fees for technology access, reporting, review management, or rush handling. The invoice has three line items: translation, QA, and coordination.
On a per-word rate comparison, enterprise LSPs may appear competitive. On a total cost of ownership comparison — including hidden fees, internal overhead, revision cycles, and PM rotation costs — specialist partners are typically 15 to 30% cheaper. We provide a transparent TCO comparison as part of every pricing proposal so you can evaluate with complete data.
No. Rush handling is included as standard because our dedicated team model means your linguists are already familiar with your content, terminology, and preferences. There is no ramp-up time for urgent requests. Sub-minute response is the standard, not a premium add-on.
We help you build it. Request a custom pricing proposal and we will provide a line-item TCO comparison between your current setup and our model. The comparison includes all hidden costs — internal review time, revision cycles, PM rotation, technology fees — so you have the complete picture to present to leadership.
Yes. We recommend it. Run a defined scope of content through both providers simultaneously. Compare quality, turnaround, revision rates, and coordination time. Measure everything. The data makes the decision clear. There is no minimum commitment for a parallel evaluation.
There is no long-term lock-in. Retainer agreements are structured monthly with transparent terms. You can start with a parallel evaluation at no commitment, then scale based on results. The relationship is sustained by performance, not by contract penalties.
Within 48 hours of receiving your current vendor setup, content types, and volume information. The proposal includes a transparent TCO comparison and a clear breakdown of what is included. No follow-up meetings required to get the numbers — you receive a complete proposal you can evaluate independently.
Share your current vendor setup, content types, and volumes. We will send a transparent pricing proposal with TCO comparison within 48 hours — the numbers you need to build the business case.
Prefer email? ricard@kobaltlanguages.com