The three fee models
Percentage, fixed, or hybrid: what each one actually means for you
Almost every R&D adviser prices on a percentage of the claim's value (contingency, no claim no fee), because it removes the upfront cost for a company that isn't sure whether it qualifies. A smaller number offer a fixed fee, or let you choose. The catch with a pure percentage model isn't the model itself. It's that on a small claim a percentage fee can eat a large share of the benefit, which is part of why smaller claims are harder to get an adviser to take on at all. A fixed or capped fee protects against that on small claims, but you pay it whether or not HMRC ultimately agrees the claim.
What's actually published
2 firms publish a rate. 3 describe their model. 12 publish neither.
This is the honest finding, not a criticism: most of the market prices bespoke, by claim size and complexity, quoted after a conversation. That's a legitimate way to price a genuinely variable service. But it also means you can't compare most of the market on cost without contacting each firm individually, and the handful that do publish something are worth reading closely for exactly that reason.
| Firm | Model | Rate | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| EmpowerRD | Hybrid (flat or tiered percentage, client chooses) | Flat: 6% of claim benefit, minimum £4,000. Tiered 'Growth' plan: sliding scale from 6% down to 0.5% by claim size (up to £250k = 6%; £250k-500k = 5%; £500k-750k = 3%; £750k-1m = 2%; £1m-1.5m = 1%; £1.5m+ = 0.5%), minimum £5,000. | Rates published on the live pricing page, checked 9 August 2026. A separate 2024 marketing article (empowerrd.com/empowerrd-5-percent-fees/) still states 'we only charge 5%', which conflicts with the current 6% headline. We've used the pricing page, as the more current source. |
| Alexander Clifford | Percentage (contingency, no win no fee) | 25% of the service entitlement/benefit when an R&D claim is identified; no charge if no qualifying claim is found. | Stated plainly on its main service page as of 9 August 2026, framed by the firm as 'lower than the industry average.' No charge if no qualifying claim is identified. |
| Kene Partners | Percentage (contingency) | No rate published (model only) | Charged as a percentage of the claim, agreed before any work takes place; no fixed rate published, priced case-by-case by size, complexity and timeline. Client pays nothing until the benefit is received. |
| ForrestBrown | Hybrid (percentage, fixed, or time-and-materials, client's choice) | No rate published (model only) | Exact quote from their own site: 'Depending on your specific requirements, our fee can be charged as a percentage of the benefit you receive, as a fixed amount or on a time and materials basis.' No specific percentage published, but the fee structure itself is transparently disclosed. |
| Source Advisors (formerly GovGrant) | Hybrid (contingent by default, some fixed-fee services) | No rate published (model only) | Own site confirms a contingent/value-based fee is the default philosophy, explicitly defending 'no win no fee' against critics, but states they've moved away from 100% contingent toward requiring engagement/minimum fees. Exact percentage not published. Confirmed detail: 'some of our GovGrant services are fixed fee: usually when we review a previous claim that a client brings with them from another provider. Or when they seek our advice through our HMRC Enquiry service.' |
Read the rate against what it includes, not just the number: a lower headline percentage isn't automatically the better deal. Check whether HMRC enquiry support is included in the fee or charged separately, since an enquiry can take months and a firm that charges extra for defending its own claim is a different proposition to one that includes it. EmpowerRD, Kene Partners and Ryan Innovation Funding (the last doesn't publish a rate, so isn't in the table above) all state their enquiry support terms explicitly (full detail on each is in the adviser register). Several others name an enquiry service without publishing whether it's included.
The ones that publish neither
Not publishing a rate isn't a red flag, but it weakens your negotiating position
Easy R&D, Leyton UK, Ayming UK, RIFT R&D Tax Credits, Ryan Innovation Funding (formerly Catax), ABGi UK (formerly Jumpstart), MPA (Michael Price Associates), RCK Partners, RAndDTax, Cooden Tax Consulting, Kreston Reeves, Rouse Partners. Not publishing a rate isn't itself a red flag. Several of these are established accountancy firms (Kreston Reeves, Rouse Partners) pricing R&D work the way they price any other engagement, quoted individually. It does mean you're negotiating from a weaker position than with a firm that's already told you the number, so it's worth asking early, and in writing, rather than after work has started.
Alternatives and limitations
A published rate isn't a quote
This page compares what's published, not what you'd actually be quoted. Real terms depend on your claim size and complexity and are worth getting in writing before instructing anyone. For the full picture on each firm, including AML supervision and introducer terms, see the adviser register. And advisers who interact with HMRC on a client's behalf fall under a formal registration requirement under the Finance Act 2026, Part 7 (Schedule 20 sets out the exemptions to it, not the requirement itself), so a firm's fee is only half the decision.
