Handles both · Verified 18 August 2026
Deel — EOR, PEO and contractors on one platform
EOR from $599/employee/mo
The awkward reality is that most institutions need more than one of these at once: an EOR for the researcher in a country with no entity, a PEO for the team in a country where there is one, and contractor management for genuinely independent consultants. Deel offers all three, which matters mainly because it means the answer to “which do we need here?” does not also mean switching vendors and re-onboarding finance every time the answer changes.
Get a Deel demo → Opens on the vendor’s site · CASRAI referral link
Read the full employer of record explainer → — Deel lists EOR from $599/employee/mo and US PEO from $125/employee/mo — the gap between those two numbers is why the entity question is worth answering carefully.
Editorial disclosure: Some links on this page are CASRAI referral links. If you sign up through one, CASRAI may earn a commission at no extra cost to you — this helps fund our nonprofit mission. We only recommend tools our editorial team has independently researched. Read our full disclosure policy.
In summary
- The deciding question: do you already have a legal entity in that country? No entity means EOR. Entity already in place means PEO is available and is usually cheaper.
- Under an EOR, the provider is the sole legal employer. Under a PEO, you and the provider are co-employers and you remain the entity of record.
- PEO is largely a US construct. Outside the US the equivalent arrangement is usually just called an EOR, or does not exist in that form at all.
- Deel lists US PEO from $125/employee/month and EOR from $599/employee/month. Verified 18 August 2026.
- A PEO does not reduce permanent establishment risk, because you already have the establishment. An EOR is the option that addresses it.
EOR vs PEO, side by side
The differences that change which one you can use
| Dimension | Employer of record (EOR) | Professional employer organisation (PEO) |
|---|---|---|
| Do you need your own entity? | No — this is the entire point | Yes, and it must already be registered and running payroll |
| Who is the legal employer | The provider, solely | You and the provider jointly (co-employment) |
| Whose name is on the contract | The provider’s | Yours |
| Employment liability | Sits with the provider | Shared — you retain real exposure |
| Permanent establishment risk | Materially reduced | Unchanged — you already have a presence |
| Typical published cost | From $599/employee/month (Deel) | From $125/employee/month (Deel, US) |
| Geographic availability | 150+ countries via provider entities | Primarily the US; the model does not exist in the same form everywhere |
| Sensible headcount | One person upward — no minimum that matters | Economic once you have a real local team |
| Benefits buying power | The provider’s plans, which you take as offered | Pooled purchasing — often genuinely better than you could get alone |
| Use it when | One funded post in a country you have no footprint in | You have a US entity and want the HR and benefits administration off your desk |
The entity test settles it
Before comparing features, answer one question: does your organisation already have a registered legal entity in the country where this person will work?
If no — you need an employer of record. A PEO is not an option, because a PEO works by sitting alongside your entity and taking over the administration of employment you are already legally capable of doing. With no entity there is nothing for it to sit alongside. This is the situation almost every research institution is in when a grant puts a post in a new country.
If yes — a PEO becomes available, and is usually the better economics. You are already the employer; you are buying administration, benefits purchasing power and compliance support rather than a legal vehicle. The published price gap is substantial: Deel lists US PEO from $125 per employee per month against EOR from $599.
Everything else in this comparison is downstream of that one answer. If you take nothing else from this page, take that.
Co-employment is not a technicality
The phrase that carries most of the real difference is co-employment. Under a PEO, you and the provider are both employers of the same person, with responsibilities split between you. The provider typically handles payroll processing, tax filing, benefits administration and a defined slice of HR compliance. You retain direction of the work, day-to-day management, and — importantly — a real share of employment liability. If a discrimination or wrongful-termination claim arises, you are a party to it. The PEO agreement allocates responsibility between you, but it does not make you a bystander.
Under an EOR, there is no co-employment. The provider is the employer, full stop. The contract is theirs, the liability is theirs, and the indemnities in your service agreement are what protect you. You direct the work, but you are a client rather than an employer.
For a research institution, this distinction shows up in unglamorous places. Which entity’s name appears on the employment contract the person shows their landlord or their visa caseworker. Which policies apply — yours, the provider’s, or a negotiated blend. Who runs a grievance or disciplinary process, and under whose procedure. Whether your institutional insurance responds. Whether a funder that requires named staff on the award is satisfied by a contract in another company’s name. None of these are dealbreakers, but all of them are much easier to sort out before someone starts than after.
Why PEO is mostly a US term
PEO is largely an American construct, with an established regulatory framework behind it — including IRS certification of certain providers, which affects who is liable for federal employment taxes. Outside the US the same word gets used loosely by vendors, and often what is being described is really an EOR arrangement wearing a different label, or a local payroll bureau service that is neither.
Two consequences worth carrying into a procurement conversation. First, if a provider offers you a “global PEO”, ask directly whether they are the legal employer in that country — that question, not the product name, tells you what you are buying. Second, do not assume a US PEO relationship extends anywhere else; a provider that runs your US PEO will typically move you to their EOR product the moment you hire outside the US, at the higher price point.
Most institutions end up needing both
The framing of “EOR vs PEO” implies a single choice, which is misleading for anyone operating at more than one site. A typical mid-size research organisation with international activity ends up with a portfolio: PEO or direct payroll where it has entities, EOR for the one-off posts a grant put in a new country, and contractor arrangements for genuinely independent consultants and advisory-board members.
That is a perfectly sensible end state, and it is the reason the practical procurement question is less “which model” than “can one provider cover all three, and can our finance office reconcile the invoices to grant codes.” Splitting across three vendors to save a few dollars per head per month rarely survives contact with a research office’s actual workload.
One caution on the other side: do not let platform convenience decide worker classification. The classification question — is this person genuinely an independent contractor, or an employee in substance — is a legal test about how the work is really done, and it does not change because a platform makes contractor onboarding two clicks faster. We cover the test itself in the employer of record explainer.
Not sure which one your country needs?
The entity question is easy to answer internally; the country-by-country cost is not. Deel quotes EOR, PEO and contractor arrangements against a specific country and salary band, which is the comparison that actually settles a budget line.
EOR from $599/employee/mo
Compare EOR and PEO pricing → Opens on the vendor’s site · CASRAI referral link
Frequently asked questions
What is the main difference between an EOR and a PEO?
An EOR becomes the sole legal employer and does not require you to have an entity in the country. A PEO is a co-employment arrangement that works alongside your own local entity, which you must already have. In short: no entity means EOR, existing entity means PEO is available.
Is a PEO cheaper than an EOR?
Generally yes, and often substantially. Deel lists US PEO from $125 per employee per month against EOR from $599, verified 18 August 2026. The gap reflects what you are buying — a PEO sells administration on top of employment you are already legally able to do, whereas an EOR sells the legal ability itself.
Can I use a PEO to hire someone in a country where I have no entity?
No. That is precisely the case a PEO cannot serve, because there is no entity for the co-employment relationship to attach to. You need an employer of record.
Does a PEO reduce permanent establishment risk?
No — you already have an establishment in that country, which is what made the PEO possible in the first place. If reducing permanent establishment exposure is your goal, the EOR route is the one that addresses it.
Do PEOs exist outside the United States?
The term is used internationally by vendors, but the regulated model is largely American. Elsewhere, what is marketed as a “global PEO” is frequently an EOR arrangement under a different name. Ask whether the provider is the legal employer in that specific country — the answer, not the product label, tells you what you are buying.
Can we use an EOR in one country and a PEO in another?
Yes, and most organisations with international activity end up doing exactly that. It is normal to hold a PEO or direct payroll where you have entities and an EOR for one-off posts elsewhere. Using one provider across both mainly saves your finance office from reconciling several invoice formats against grant codes.
