A plain breakdown of what recruiters charge across contingency and retained search, plus how Recruitmint's three engagement models are structured, so you know what shapes the quote before you ask for one.
Contingency recruiters typically charge 20-25% of a role's first-year cash pay, paid only on placement, according to SHRM's guidance on working with search firms. Retained search firms typically charge about 33%, paid across an exclusive engagement regardless of outcome. We price differently: three engagement models, structured around what drives the quote rather than a single blanket percentage.
Key numbers
The two conventions most hiring leaders have heard of come from the same SHRM guidance on working with search firms.
Contingency recruiters typically work on a percentage of first-year cash compensation, in a band SHRM puts at 20-25%. The fee is paid only if the recruiter's candidate is hired, and the engagement is usually non-exclusive, meaning a client can run the same role through several firms at once and pay whichever one lands the placement. That structure rewards speed over depth: a contingency recruiter who spends weeks calibrating a role they might not fill is spending time they cannot recover.
Retained search firms charge more, and structure the relationship differently. SHRM reports the retained-search industry's standard fee at about 33% of a role's annual salary, bonus and signing bonus. The engagement is exclusive, and the fee is typically paid across the search regardless of how many candidates are ultimately interviewed or whether the first slate lands. That structure buys focus: a firm paid whether or not a specific candidate closes has more reason to run a properly calibrated search than to move fast on a shallow one. Our comparison of retained vs contingency search goes into when each structure fits.
A third model, recruitment process outsourcing (RPO), prices differently again. The RPO Association describes a management-fee model that covers staff, technology, sourcing and overhead, a pay-for-performance model with an open fee per requisition plus a close fee per hire, or a blend of both. RPO tends to show up when a company needs recruiting capacity across many roles over a long period, not a single search.
We do not price on a single percentage. The Hiring Scorecard recommends one of three engagement models based on how many roles are open, how much support is needed, and how defined the role already is.
Sourcing Sprint fits a client who can run interviews internally and needs a calibrated shortlist, not a full search team. We identify, engage and qualify candidates, then hand over the shortlist, priced as a flat fee per search rather than a percentage of pay.
Full Search runs the whole search end to end: calibration, candidate assessment, interviews, offer and close. It combines a launch fee with a success fee on placement, and it is the model most readers comparing recruiter percentages are actually shopping for.
Embedded Partner is dedicated recruitment capacity for multiple active roles at once, working as an extension of an internal team rather than a one-off engagement. It is structured as a monthly fee plus a reduced success fee.
The published footnote on all three: success fees vary based on role seniority, search complexity and hiring volume, and executive-level or unusually complex searches may be quoted individually. Pricing for all three models is available on request, and none of them carries a stated guarantee period, replacement period, or time-to-fill commitment.
| Model | Fee structure | Exclusivity | When it fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Contingency recruiter | 20-25% of first-year cash pay (SHRM) | Non-exclusive, pay on placement only | Roles where speed matters more than depth, or where running multiple firms at once is acceptable |
| Retained search | About 33% of salary, bonus, signing bonus (SHRM) | Exclusive, paid across the engagement | High-stakes roles where a single firm's full attention is worth the fee regardless of interview volume |
| Sourcing Sprint | Flat per-search fee, no percentage published | Single-firm engagement | Client runs interviews internally, needs a calibrated shortlist only |
| Full Search | Launch fee + success fee | Single-firm engagement | End-to-end search for a high-impact or hard-to-fill hire |
| Embedded Partner | Monthly fee + reduced success fee | Single-firm engagement | Multiple active roles, ongoing recruitment capacity |
The honest framing for all three is a single-firm engagement, owed regardless of outcome once launched, not an exclusivity clause with named terms.
Suppose a growth-stage company runs a Full Search for a mid-senior hire. The launch fee is a fixed line in the structure: it covers calibration through the early stages of the search regardless of what happens next.
The second component, the success fee, is where a spreadsheet stops working. It is owed on placement, and it varies with role seniority, search complexity and hiring volume, per the published footnote. No percentage or flat figure is published for it; a total search cost is quoted per role rather than computed from a public rate.
This is different from contingency or retained pricing, where the percentage is at least a known convention (20-25% or about 33% of first-year pay per SHRM), even if it is not fixed to the dollar until an actual candidate accepts an offer. With our model, the structure is public even though the numbers are not: a fixed launch component and a variable success component, both confirmed once the specific role, level and market are known.
A fee percentage looks like the whole decision until the cost of the wrong hire enters the picture. SHRM's 2025 benchmarking data puts average cost-per-hire at $5,475 for non-executive roles and $35,879 for executive roles, roughly 6.5 times higher. That gap is not driven by recruiter fees alone; it reflects everything that goes into filling a senior seat, including the greater cost of getting it wrong and having to start over.
That is the argument for weighing a search partner's judgment, not just its percentage. A 5-point difference between a 20% contingency fee and a 25% one on a role paying in the low six figures is a modest sum next to the cost of a bad hire at that level. The fee model matters, but it is one line in a larger cost equation, not the whole equation.
Our post on how retained and contingency search compare and the broader explainer on what a success fee actually is both cover the mechanics of when each fee structure tends to earn its price.
A reader trying to compare fees across firms will run into the same wall repeatedly: guarantee periods, replacement periods, time-to-fill commitments and specific success-fee percentages are rarely published anywhere, and Recruitmint's Hiring Scorecard is no exception. The published footnote states that success fees vary with seniority, complexity and volume, and that executive or unusually complex searches may be quoted individually. It does not state a number.
The published footnote is the only stated reason: success fees vary based on role seniority, search complexity and hiring volume. The honest version of "how much will this cost" is: the structure is public before a single conversation happens, and the specific launch fee and success fee are confirmed once the role, seniority and market are known, since pricing is available on request.
Contingency recruiters typically run 20-25% of first-year cash pay, paid only on placement, per SHRM; retained search runs about 33%, paid across an exclusive engagement. We price three ways instead: Sourcing Sprint is a flat fee for a shortlist only, Full Search combines a launch fee with a success fee that varies with seniority and complexity, and Embedded Partner combines a monthly fee with a reduced success fee. None of the three carries a published success-fee percentage, guarantee period, or time-to-fill, and pricing for all three is available on request. For a fuller walk through all three engagement models side by side, see the explainer on recruiter fees and engagement models.
SHRM's guidance on working with search firms puts contingency recruiter fees at 20-25% of first-year cash compensation and retained search fees at about 33% of salary, bonus and signing bonus. Recruitmint does not publish a single percentage across its models; a Full Search combines a launch fee with a success fee that varies with seniority and complexity, and pricing is available on request.
The launch fee for a Full Search covers calibration and the early stages of the search regardless of outcome, which is why that part of the structure is fixed before a client commits to a full engagement. The success fee, paid on placement, is where seniority and complexity get factored in, and it is not fixed to a single percentage across every role.
A Sourcing Sprint is a flat per-search fee, not a percentage of pay, and it covers sourcing and shortlist delivery only, with the client running interviews internally. Whether it costs less than a 20-25% contingency fee depends entirely on the role's compensation and the specific quote; our comparison of sourcing-only recruiting walks through when that model is enough.
Embedded Partner combines a monthly fee with a reduced success fee, and it is built for multiple active roles running through one dedicated capacity. RPO, per the RPO Association, can be priced as a management fee, a pay-for-performance fee per requisition and hire, or a blend of both, so a direct comparison depends on the specific RPO structure quoted and on a quote for the roles involved.
Guarantee periods and replacement periods are common in the industry; none is published for our models. Any firm quoting a specific replacement period is stating its own term, not an industry standard, and it is worth asking for in writing before signing.
How Recruitmint's Embedded Partner model is structured, what it includes, and the volume threshold at which the Hiring Scorecard recommends it over a single search.
Embedded recruiting and RPO both provide ongoing recruiting capacity, but differ in scope and how pricing is structured. Here is an honest comparison, using Recruitmint's Embedded Partner model and the RPO Association's own published pricing categories.
The market convention for retained executive search fees, what that means in dollar terms at different compensation levels, and how Recruitmint's Full Search model compares in structure.
Recruit