OnlyFans Agency Fee Comparison Worksheet: Normalize Scope and Total Cost

Normalize every offer to the same revenue base, time period and service scope before comparing cost. Record each Fee base, percentage or fixed charge, included deliverable, creator input, tool cost, access request and reporting evidence. Then calculate total modelled cost for one stated scenario and leave unresolved assumptions visible. The cheapest headline rate is not necessarily the lowest total cost or the best match for the creator's bottleneck.

Freeze the offers and comparison scenario

Save the exact proposal, date, provider and version. Offers change; a call summary from memory is not a reliable price record. Choose one comparison period and currency. If one offer bills monthly and another uses a different cycle, translate both into the same modelled period while preserving the original billing terms in separate fields.

Use one revenue input across percentage offers. It can be a creator's selected historical period or a fictional teaching amount, but label the source. Do not use a provider's optimistic projection as the base for its own offer while evaluating another provider against current revenue. That would compare assumptions rather than fees.

Write stop conditions before calculating: missing base definition, unknown fixed charge, services with no owner, access with no purpose, or a material item that exists only in a sales conversation. The worksheet can model an unresolved scenario, but it should not mark that scenario comparable.

Use the discovery call guide to close gaps. Send the same questions to each provider and attach the written answers to the Offer ID.

Run Scope normalization one capability at a time

Providers often bundle different work under the same label. “Management” can mean planning and reporting in one offer, or include scheduling, messaging and promotion in another. Build one row per capability and mark Included, Optional, Excluded or Unclear. An included capability still needs an observable deliverable, cadence, owner and creator input.

Keep creator workload visible. If a planning service depends on the creator writing every caption and building the schedule, the delivered service is narrower than a proposal that supplies those outputs for approval. That difference may be acceptable, but it belongs in the decision rather than being hidden behind the same capability name.

Do not assign a cash value to unpriced creator time unless the creator has a defensible internal method. Instead, record hours or task units from current operations and mark the workload retained. This keeps the worksheet useful without inventing a universal hourly cost.

Normalize the Fee base and every extra charge

For a percentage fee, copy the written rate and exact base definition. Map the base to a statement line or build clearly labelled scenarios if it is ambiguous. For a fixed fee, record amount, billing period, start trigger, review or change condition and any setup amount. For a hybrid structure, calculate the percentage and fixed pieces separately before adding them.

List tools, promotion spend, production, editing, payment costs or reimbursements only when the offer actually names them. Mark Included, Creator pays, Agency pays, Shared, Optional or Unclear. Do not invent a cost for an unclear item; keep it unresolved and ask who selects the supplier, approves the spend and owns the account.

Separate one-time and recurring charges. A one-time setup amount should not be multiplied across every future period, and a recurring tool should not disappear after the first month. Build first-period and ongoing-period views when the cash pattern differs. Neither is a prediction of results.

Keep taxes and creator-specific business costs outside this generic comparison unless the creator has appropriate current advice and a documented treatment. The worksheet evaluates provider charges and scope, not a complete tax or profit model.

Use a Total-cost worksheet with explicit assumptions

Assumptions: a fictional one-month comparison, one currency, $10,000 candidate fee base, no taxes, no conversion, and no revenue change attributed to either provider. The SirenCY rate input is the verified 35%. The base itself is hypothetical because this page does not claim a universal SirenCY fee base. At 35%, the modelled percentage fee is $3,500 before any written additional charge.

Compare that scenario with a fictional Provider B offer containing a $3,200 fixed monthly fee and a named $450 tool charge. Its modelled provider cost is $3,650. That does not make Provider A “cheaper” in general: a percentage fee changes when the base changes, service scopes may differ, and either offer may contain unresolved items. The example exists only to show the worksheet mechanics.

Repeat the model at relevant creator-observed bases without describing a range as an industry norm. Note where the relative cost changes, then return to deliverables, workload and evidence. A cost difference without scope normalization is not a decision.

Copy the fee comparison fields

Score completeness before considering fit

Mark each material field Confirmed, Unclear or Not applicable. A proposal is comparison-ready only when the fee formula, service rows, creator inputs, access request and reporting output are defined. Do not turn completeness into a provider quality score; it simply tells you whether the available evidence supports a comparison.

Next, compare fit with the creator's documented bottleneck. If the creator needs scheduling help, an offer rich in promotion but unclear on publishing may be poor fit even if its modelled cost is lower. Write which deliverable addresses the bottleneck and what evidence will show it was delivered.

Use a review point based on scope: outputs supplied, owner responsiveness, reporting traceability, access matching the record and open items closed. Keep subscriber or revenue observations separate and do not attribute movement to the provider without stronger evidence.

Continue with the agency vetting checklist for provider identity, references and wider evaluation. This worksheet's output is Normalized, Needs answers or Not comparable—not a winner.

Worked example decision note

In the fictional scenario above, Offer A has a complete percentage formula and includes planning, scheduling and reporting, but its tool treatment is still unanswered. Offer B has a clear fixed fee and tool charge, includes scheduling and reporting, but excludes planning. The creator's bottleneck is an unplanned publishing queue, so the scope difference matters more than the $150 modelled first-period cost difference.

The decision state is Needs answers. The creator asks Offer A to clarify tools and asks Offer B for the planning option, owner and price. The sheet preserves both original offers and adds revised versions only when written answers arrive. It does not average the two or assume an excluded capability will be provided informally.

This is a useful result: the creator has converted a vague price choice into two specific questions. No subscriber, earnings, conversion or performance outcome is claimed.

Compare the creator workload after normalizing price

Two offers can show the same modelled provider cost while requiring very different creator inputs. Add recurring creator work beside every capability: producing source files, approving calendars, answering brand questions, checking drafts, supplying account exports and resolving exceptions. Record the expected frequency, owner and deadline. An included service is not equivalent across offers if one proposal leaves essential preparation or approval work undefined.

Separate setup work from ongoing work. An onboarding questionnaire, folder migration or initial brand brief may be substantial but temporary. Weekly approvals, replacement uploads and reporting reviews continue. This separation prevents a one-time setup burden from distorting the comparison and stops an apparently simple recurring service from hiding a large creator-side operating requirement.

Mark each workload estimate Confirmed, Provider estimate, Creator estimate or Unknown. Do not invent an hourly value merely to produce one total. If time cost matters to the decision, collect a short task log from the creator and ask each provider to confirm the handoff. Keep any currency value for creator time as an explicit assumption rather than a universal rate.

The comparison result can now distinguish lower provider cost, lower creator workload and better scope fit instead of collapsing all three into Cheapest. Preserve those dimensions separately in the decision note. The worksheet still does not rank agencies or predict results; it makes the current written offers comparable enough for the creator to ask the next material question.