════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ -->
The opposite of a subscription: you pay for benefits employees actually use, not for platform access they may or may not touch. How the model works and why it saves money.
Most employee benefits platforms charge a subscription. A monthly fee per employee, billed regardless of whether those employees open the platform, spend their benefit budget, or engage with the programme at all.
A pay-per-use benefits platform works differently. You pay for what employees actually receive — not for access to a platform that may or may not get used.

A company with 80 employees paying £5/employee/month is spending £4,800/year on platform access. If 40% of employees are genuinely active, the effective cost of reaching each engaged employee is £12.50/month, not £5. The subscription model has no mechanism to reflect this — you pay for 100% of the headcount regardless of how many are engaging.
The subscription runs whether engagement is high or low. In the first month after launch, utilization is typically strong. By month four or five, engagement stabilises at a lower level — some employees use the platform regularly, many do not. The subscription continues at the same rate.
A pay-per-use benefits platform replaces the subscription with a credit model. The company pays for the credits purchased — nothing else.
50-employee company, 12-month period:
Same employee count. Same benefit budget. No subscription. Higher utilization because the credit model removes friction. £3,000 saved in platform fees. £8,280 more value delivered to employees.
If you have run a subscription platform and found engagement dropped after a few months, pay-per-use removes the cost of the platform during low-engagement periods. You are not paying for a subscription while employees are not using what they have.
Subscription platforms require headcount adjustments every time someone joins or leaves. A credit model adjusts automatically — new employees receive credits when the allocation rule runs, leavers stop when they leave.
If your CFO wants benefit spend to reflect actual value delivered rather than platform access, the credit model is the more defensible structure. One invoice. Allocation tied to employees who receive and use credits.
A pay-per-use benefits platform charges no subscription fee. The company buys credits, allocates them to employees, and pays only for what employees receive. The model saves money in two ways: no subscription overhead, and higher utilization from a visible balance and flexible spending — which means more of the benefit budget delivers actual value to employees.
A pay-per-use benefits platform charges no subscription fee. Instead of a monthly per-employee fee for platform access, the company purchases a bundle of credits and allocates them to employees. The cost is tied directly to the credits distributed — not to headcount or access. There is no recurring platform fee charged regardless of employee engagement.
A subscription platform charges a monthly fee per employee whether they use the platform or not. A pay-per-use platform has no such fee — the only cost is the credits purchased and allocated. The cost reflects actual benefit delivery rather than theoretical access.
No. The pricing model is separate from the quality of the platform. A credit-based pay-per-use platform can include a full marketplace, peer recognition, analytics, and automation — the same capabilities as subscription-based competitors. The difference is the cost structure, not the feature set.
Unspent credits remain in the employee’s Wallet balance until they are spent. The company has already paid for the credit bundle at purchase — unspent credits represent value that has been allocated but not yet used. Admins can see unspent balances in the analytics dashboard and take action if utilization is consistently low for specific employees.
No subscription. Buy credits. Allocate them. See where they go.
One invoice. No platform fee running in the background.
No subscription — buy credits and allocate them.