Disclosure: This comparison is published by Remote. To ensure a fair and commercially useful decision guide, factual claims are drawn from verified public documentation, and experiential claims rely on verified third-party reviews or are marked for demo validation.
Choosing between Lano and Remote is a choice between two distinct operating models. You are deciding between a payroll consolidation and partner-orchestrated platform (Lano) and a unified, direct-entity global employment platform (Remote).
This guide answers the obvious comparison questions and the hidden procurement and implementation questions. We explore how each platform handles EOR-led expansion, payroll execution for your existing entities, and contractor admin so you can choose the right foundation for your international workforce.
TL;DR: Which platform is better for your team?
Best overall: Remote. Remote is the recommended default for companies seeking a unified operating model. Because Remote owns its local entities and uses a home-grown payroll engine, it offers fewer operational handoffs, deeper public security proof, and free integrations. It is the safer choice for teams mixing EOR, direct payroll, and contractors.
Best for entity-led payroll consolidation: Lano. If you already have legal entities in multiple countries and your primary goal is to centralize existing local payroll providers into one dashboard, Lano is a strong contender.
Best for lower list-price optics: Lano. With EOR rates starting at €499 for EOR and payroll consolidation from €3, Lano often wins on initial list-price comparisons.
Remote provides a unified, direct-entity platform that eliminates third-party handoffs by owning the legal infrastructure, payroll execution, and employment liability itself. While Lano serves as a flexible digital bridge for consolidating existing local payroll providers, Remote offers a more integrated operating model for companies seeking total control and predictability.
Quick chooser
Choose Remote if…
Choose Lano if…
You need EOR-led expansion. You want to hire in countries where you don't have an entity and prefer a direct model where the platform provider owns the legal infrastructure and employment liability.
You need payroll consolidation. You already have multiple legal entities and your primary goal is to centralize visibility across your existing disparate local payroll providers.
You manage a mixed workforce. You want one unified system to handle EOR employees, direct payroll for your own entities, and international contractors under one governance model.
You prefer payroll orchestration. You want to keep your current local payroll partners but manage them through a single digital layer and a partner-driven delivery model.
Procurement requires public proof. Your IT and Security teams demand immediate, transparent access to SOC 2 Type II, ISO 27001, SSO, and SCIM documentation before signing.
You want a dedicated account manager. You value a "single point of contact" model where a dedicated lead coordinates various in-country partners and handles your urgent queries.
You value integration breadth. You need deep, out-of-the-box integrations with systems like Workday, HiBob, and NetSuite that are provided for free without hidden implementation fees.
Integrated payments are a priority. You need a platform where multi-currency salary disbursements and one-click bulk payments are bundled into all available plans.
You have a high volume of contractors. You want to take advantage of a competitive $29 flat fee for contractor management with a deeply productized and documented compliance stack.
You are finance-led and entity-rich. You prioritize a single dashboard to standardize global spend and reporting across a pre-existing network of international subsidiaries.
You want fewer procurement unknowns. You prefer a transparent, public flat-pricing model that eliminates the friction of quote-based negotiations for core services.
You prefer a service-led model. You are comfortable with an orchestrated network of partners and prefer a consultative approach to global expansion and payroll.
Lano vs Remote at a glance
Remote
Lano
Category
Global employment platform
Global payroll & consolidation platform
Best fit
Unified EOR, direct payroll, and contractors.
Finance-led payroll centralization for existing entities.
EOR model
Direct-entity: Remote is the direct employer.
Partner-network: Orchestrated via third-party EORs.
Payroll model
Direct execution: Home-grown engine & in-house experts.
Consolidation-led: Connects customers to local partners.
Contractor payments
$29/mo; automated compliance in 180+ countries.
From €19/mo; focus on integrated multi-currency pay.
Entity workflow fit
Yes: Seamlessly mix EOR and owned-entity payroll.
Yes: Strongest for standardizing disparate providers.
Non-entity fit
Yes: Direct ownership ensures faster, safer expansion.
Yes: Offers wide reach via 170+ partner countries.
Public starting prices; specific quotes for scope.
Best buyer type
High-growth teams seeking a single system of record.
Finance teams seeking a global payroll dashboard.
Verify in demo
Support escalation for complex local tax issues.
Ownership and liability model in your specific countries.
Why this decision is really about your operating model
When choosing between Lano and Remote, the most important factor is your specific use case and your business requirements.
For global expansion without local entities
If you want to scale in other countries, but don’t want to handle the effort of establishing a legal entity, you’ll need an Employer of Record (EOR).
Remote operates as a direct provider, meaning it owns the local entities in 90+ countries. This creates tight alignment between your software and the legal employer. Lano operates an orchestration model, connecting you to a network of third-party EOR partners. While Lano provides the interface, the underlying legal employment is handled by local partners.
For consolidating multiple existing entities
For established companies with subsidiaries in several countries, the main challenge is tool sprawl.
You may have multiple payroll providers with separate portals and fragmented data. Lano is especially strong here, acting as a digital bridge that allows you to keep existing local providers while standardizing data and payments in one dashboard. Remote handles this via its Global Payroll product but focuses on payroll execution, moving your payroll onto Remote’s in-house engine for a fully unified system.
For hybrid workforces
Modern companies are often hybrid: they have entities in primary hubs but use EOR for remote talent elsewhere, plus a global contractor layer.
Remote is built for this unified governance. Because Remote owns the infrastructure for EOR, payroll, and contractors, there are no delivery seams between worker types. Lano approaches the hybrid team through coordination, helping you orchestrate various partners and software modules into a single point of contact.
Compare Lano and Remote by key criteria
To help you make the decision, we’ve listed eight categories that impact your daily operations, from how payroll is actually calculated to the depth of your software integrations.
EOR vs. payroll emphasis
Remote was built as a "direct" global employment platform, with a heavy emphasis on owning the legal infrastructure required to hire international talent.
Lano was built as a payroll orchestration and consolidation platform, designed to sit on top of existing local providers to give finance teams a single view of their global spend.
Remote: Publicly lists Employer of Record (EOR) services in 90+ countries. In these core markets, Remote owns the legal entity, acting as the direct employer. This means there are no third-party partners between your company, your employee, and the platform.
Lano: Offers EOR services in 170+ countries but delivers these services through a network of local partners. Lano acts as the technology and account management layer, while the partner acts as the legal employer of record.
For buyers who do not yet have entities and want a standardized, direct relationship with their legal employer, Remote is the more coherent operating model. For buyers who already have a preferred provider in a specific country but need a better digital interface, Lano’s partner-led model is a strong alternative.
What to verify in demo
Ask each vendor for a list of countries where they own the legal entity versus where they rely on a partner.
Payroll depth and payroll operating model
Remote uses a home-grown payroll engine and employs in-house country experts. When you process payroll, Remote’s technology calculates the gross-to-net, manages automated tax processing, and handles salary payments across 70+ countries. This model reduces the "sync gap" between HR data and payroll results.
Lano focuses on connecting you to the right people. You sign your service agreement with Lano, but the actual payroll execution is typically handled by local payroll partners in their 170+ supported countries. Lano’s value is the consolidation — pulling data from these various partners into one dashboard and providing a single multi-currency wallet for payments.
What to verify in demo
Ask: If we have a payroll discrepancy in a specific country, do we speak to an in-house expert at your company, or do you have to contact a local partner’s support team for the answer?
Entity vs. EOR workflows
Many companies operate in a hybrid state. They may have their own legal entities in large markets (like the UK or US) but need EOR services for hires in smaller markets (like Portugal or Vietnam).
Remote is designed for the hybrid team. Because Remote's EOR, and Global Payroll are all accessible from one unified platform, you don't have to switch across tools as your company grows. If you open an entity in a country where you previously used EOR, you can transition that employee to your own payroll within the same interface.
Lano shines for the entity-heavy company. If you already have dozens of entities and dozens of local payroll providers, Lano is a powerful consolidation layer. It allows you to keep those existing relationships while standardizing your reporting. It is less about a unified employment "stack" and more about centralized financial oversight.
What to verify in demo
Ask: Show us the workflow for an employee moving from an EOR contract to our own local entity payroll. Does their historical data stay in the same profile?"
Contractor management and contractor payments
International contractors are often the "entry point" for global hiring. Both platforms offer strong contractor tools, but the cost and compliance depth vary.
Remote: Contractor management is $29 per active contractor/month. Remote also has a "Contractor of Record" option to mitigate misclassification risk and deep integration into the same platform used for EOR and payroll. https://remote.com/global-hr/contractor-of-record
Lano: Contractor management starts at €19 per active contractor/month. Lano’s standout feature here is its "integrated payments" messaging, offering a multi-currency wallet that handles 28+ currencies with one-click bulk payments included in the plans. https://www.lano.io/global-payments
While Lano may have a lower starting price, you should consider the Total Cost of Ownership (TCO). Remote’s flat fee includes its full compliance stack and all software integrations, whereas partner-led models can sometimes have hidden fees for specific payment rails or international transfers.
What to verify in demo
Ask for a full breakdown of any "hidden" costs for contractor payments, such as FX markups, wire transfer fees, or "implementation" charges for the contractor module.
Onboarding UX, admin experience, and change management
A global employment platform is only useful if your team actually uses it. Third-party reviews on platforms like G2 suggest two different user experiences:
Remote: Users frequently praise Remote’s intuitive, self-service UI. It is built for the HR team that wants to move fast without waiting for an account manager to manually "approve" an onboarding. It feels like a modern SaaS product, optimized for lower operational overhead. (G2: Justine B., 4/23/2026; 12/16/2025; Tom H., 2/17/2026: https://www.g2.com/products/remote/reviews)
Lano: Lano is often positioned as an account-managed solution. It is attractive to buyers who prefer a "concierge" experience where a dedicated person coordinates the various partner handoffs for them. (G2: Alberto D., 3/10/2026; Jose S., 7/15/2024: https://www.g2.com/products/lano/reviews)
What to verify in demo
Ask to see what is involved in the "Payroll Correction" workflow. If you notice an error after the cutoff date, how many clicks (and how many days) does it take to fix it?
Integration story and systems fit
For a mid-market or enterprise company, the EOR/Payroll platform cannot be an island. It must talk to your HRIS and your ERP.
This is a major strategic advantage for Remote. Remote publicly documents a wide range of native, free integrations. https://remote.com/global-hr/integrations-for-customers This includes a platinum-level Workday Global Payroll integration and native connectors for NetSuite, Xero, and QuickBooks. https://remote.com/global-hr/remote-workday-integration Because Remote publishes its API and SCIM documentation openly, IT teams can verify the "fit" before the first sales call.
Lano supports two-way HRIS integrations and lists high-profile examples like Workday and Zoho. However, since Lano acts as a bridge between you and third-party local payroll partners, the data flow is naturally more complex. This often means procurement teams have a higher "burden of proof" during evaluation to ensure the sync between Lano and their existing stack is truly native and not just a flat-file exchange. https://www.lano.io/lano-api
What to verify in demo
Ask: Is your integration with our HRIS a native API-to-API sync that happens in real-time, or do we have to manually trigger a data sync?"
Pricing approach and total cost of ownership
Pricing transparency is a core brand value for Remote, while Lano offers a modular, "start-from" approach.
Service
Remote (Public Price)
Lano (Public "From" Price)
EOR
$599 annual / $699 monthly
From €499 / month
Global payroll
$29 per employee/month
From €19 per employee/month
Contractor management
$29 per contractor/month
From €19 per contractor/month
Integrations
Free
Included (verify specific connectors)
Payroll consolidation
Included in Payroll
From €3 per employee/month
Note:When comparing costs, it is important to note that Remote and Lano utilize different base currencies, which can make a nominal price comparison misleading. Remote bills in USD, while Lano bills in EUR; at current exchange rates, Lano’s starting price of €499 converts to approximately $564, placing it significantly closer to Remote’s $599 annual rate than the raw figures suggest. Prospective buyers should account for these market fluctuations and potential bank conversion fees to accurately assess the total cost of ownership.
Request a "Total cost" quote that includes every employee, every contractor, and every integration you plan to use over the next 12 months.
Support model, escalation confidence, and governance
The final criterion is how the vendor handles a crisis.
Lano positions a "dedicated account manager" and "single point of contact" model as a primary strength. They publicly reference a first response time of 8 hours for urgent queries. This is ideal for buyers who want a specific person to hold accountable for partner performance. https://www.lano.io/why-lano
Instead of a single generalist, Remote provides access to specialized in-house experts in payroll, tax, and legal compliance. Because Remote owns the infrastructure, the "escalation" path is internal — they don't have to call a third-party bureau to solve your problem.
What to verify in demo
Ask: If our dedicated account manager is out of the office and a critical payroll error occurs, what is the automated escalation path to ensure our people get paid on time?
Methodology
To provide a fair and commercially useful comparison, we evaluated Lano and Remote based on a weighted rubric designed to reflect the real-world priorities of global HR, finance, and procurement leaders. This methodology prioritizes long-term operating stability and total cost of ownership over vanity metrics like headline country counts.
Scoring rubric and weighting
We evaluated both providers across eight critical dimensions to determine which platform offers the most robust infrastructure for a modern international workforce.
Category
Weight
Why it matters here
Operating-model fit
22%
The core of the comparison; distinguishes Remote's direct model from Lano's orchestration model across EOR, payroll, and contractors.
Focuses on who actually runs the payroll, how errors are fixed, and who owns the ultimate escalation.
Integrations and systems fit
14%
Evaluates the breadth and public documentation of native API connections with major HRIS and ERP systems.
Pricing transparency and TCO
12%
Assesses predictability of costs and the risk of "tool sprawl" fees versus headline list prices.
Contractor management
8%
Important for mixed-workforce teams, focusing on compliance tools and payment efficiency.
Support and implementation
7%
Evaluates the availability of specialized expertise versus generalist account management.
Coverage and expansion
5%
Considers geographic reach, but weights direct operational depth over total country count.
Note: Global employment is a rapidly changing landscape. Pricing, local labor laws, and country availability can fluctuate. We recommend that all buyers re-verify specific service levels and costs directly with the vendor before signing a contract.
Platform recommendation based on your role
Choosing the right partner often depends on your specific role and the business outcome you are tasked with delivering.
For founders, COOs, and VPs of people
Recommended: Remote
For leadership teams, the priority is usually speed to market and operational simplicity. Remote is the default choice here because it scales through a high-performance software platform rather than a manual service layer. It allows you to solve for cross-border hiring once, rather than managing a collection of different partner relationships.
For CFOs and Payroll leads
Recommended: Case-dependent (Remote or Lano)
If your primary pain point is a lack of visibility across a dozen existing legal entities, Lano deserves a fair hearing as a sophisticated consolidation dashboard. However, if your long-term goal is to unify EOR, contractors, and direct payroll into a single financial source of truth, Remote is the stronger choice for total lifecycle management.
For Procurement, IT, and Security leaders
Recommended: Remote
Remote is built to pass rigorous enterprise audits quickly. Because Remote provides a public Trust Center with SOC 2 Type II and ISO 27001 documentation, along with fully documented SSO and SCIM automation, it significantly reduces the ambiguity and "back-and-forth" typical of the procurement process.
For Payroll operation leads
Recommended: Case-dependent
The choice here depends on your preferred operating model. Choose Remote if you want direct payroll execution via a home-grown engine and in-house expertise. Choose Lano if your strategy relies on payroll orchestration, centralizing a network of local partners while maintaining a single point of contact.
For International expansion leads
Recommended: Remote
Expansion leads are tasked with entering new markets with minimal friction. Remote’s direct-entity model is the superior choice for this persona, as it provides the most compliant and predictable path to hiring in new countries without the complexity of third-party EOR handoffs.
Frequently asked questions (FAQs)
Is Lano cheaper than Remote?
Lano often has lower "list-price" optics, with EOR services starting at €499 and payroll consolidation from €3. Remote’s EOR starts at $599/year or $699/month, and Global Payroll is $29. However, Remote provides all software integrations for free, whereas partner-led models may include variable transaction or implementation fees.
Which platform is better if we do not have local entities?
Remote is generally the stronger choice for expansion without entities. Because Remote owns the legal infrastructure in its core markets, it acts as the direct employer, giving you tighter control over compliance and a more consistent experience for your employees. Lano provides broad reach in 170+ countries but relies on a network of third-party partners to act as the legal employer.
Which platform is better if we already have entities in many countries?
Lano’s core strength is payroll consolidation, allowing you to keep your existing local payroll providers while pulling all their data into a single dashboard. Remote is better if you want to replace those disparate providers with a single, in-house payroll engine to achieve a fully unified global employment stack.
How is Lano different from Remote on payroll?
The difference is orchestration vs. execution. Lano orchestrates a network of local payroll partners, acting as your single point of contact and data hub. Remote executes payroll directly using its own home-grown engine and in-house country experts, which reduces the data handoffs between your HR system and your payroll results.
Which platform is better for contractor payments?
The choice depends on your volume and payment needs. Remote offers a more robust, productized compliance and tax stack for a flat $29 fee. Lano is highly competitive on pricing (from €19) and excels in payment logistics, offering integrated multi-currency wallets and one-click bulk payments across 170+ countries.
Next steps
Choosing between Lano and Remote is a choice of how you want to manage your international workforce for the long term.
If your goal is to consolidate existing payroll partners across multiple entities into a single dashboard, Lano is a credible, finance-led solution. However, if you are looking for a unified global employment platform that allows you to hire, pay, and manage EOR employees, direct payroll employees, and contractors through one direct-entity model, Remote is the safer choice.
