The Real Cost of a Hire Is Never the Salary Line
A brand comparing hiring paths often stops at the headline number: salary versus hourly rate versus agency fee. The headline number is the smallest part of the real comparison. Benefits, payroll taxes, entity setup, management overhead, and the cost of a bad fit all sit underneath it, and they change a great deal depending on which path a brand chooses.
Full-Time In-House: The Highest Fixed Cost, The Most Control
A full-time in-house hire costs roughly 1.25 to 1.4 times the base salary once benefits, payroll taxes, and equipment are added in. A brand also carries the fixed cost even in a slow quarter, and building out a new function means covering recruiting time, onboarding, and management overhead before the role produces anything. The tradeoff is direct oversight and a team member embedded in company culture from day one.
Traditional Staffing Agencies: Fast Access, High Markup
A traditional staffing agency fills a role quickly by marking up a candidate's pay, often 40 to 75 percent on top of what the worker receives. That markup buys speed and a wider candidate pool, but it's a recurring cost for as long as the placement lasts, not a one-time fee, and most agency contracts skip the compliance and payroll infrastructure needed for hiring outside a brand's home country.
Remote Talent Through an Employer of Record: Lower Overhead, Built-In Compliance
An employer-of-record model, like the one Kadia Talent runs, starts remote roles from $6 an hour and scales to executive placements at market rate, with payroll, tax withholding, and local compliance handled under Kadia's own entity rather than the brand's. There's no new entity to open, no benefits administration to build, and the 90-day replacement guarantee shifts mis-hire risk off the brand's books, not onto them.
Which Path Wins Depends on the Role
A role that requires daily in-person collaboration and deep institutional knowledge often justifies the in-house cost. A role that needs to be filled in two weeks with no long-term commitment might justify an agency markup. A role that's ongoing, could be done well by someone outside the brand's home country, and doesn't require physical presence is where the cost gap between in-house and EOR-based remote talent is largest, often by a wide enough margin to fund an entire second hire.
Running the Numbers for a Specific Role
The comparison only means something applied to a real role, a real salary band, and a real location. A brand weighing these three paths for a specific hire can get a real breakdown of what that role costs across all three, not a generic percentage, before deciding which path fits.