Restaurant Reservation System Pricing Compared: Monthly vs Per-Booking vs Commission (2026)
4 reservation system pricing models compared with hard numbers — monthly contract, usage-based, commission, free. Compute TCO and learn which volume fits which model.
"Why does one system charge NT$1,500/month and another NT$3 per booking?"
The most confusing question in the reservation system market. Same product category, wildly different pricing structures — from contract monthly fees, usage-based, commission, to "free." Every sales rep claims theirs is cheapest. How do you know who's right?
This article uses pure numbers + no vendor names to unpack the 4 pricing models you'll see in the Taiwan market. After reading, you'll be able to:
- Compute the real TCO (Total Cost of Ownership) of each model using your actual booking volume
- Know which booking-volume range fits which model
- Avoid common traps in "free" and "monthly lock-in" pricing
Try the interactive TCO calculator with your own numbers. First, the pros and cons of each model.
4 mainstream pricing models
Model A: Monthly + contract (NT$1,500-3,000/mo + 1-2 year lock-in)
Typical structure: NT$1,500-3,000/month, 12-24 month contract, overage fees beyond a booking quota.
Best for:
- Steady 200-500 monthly bookings
- Confidence that booking volume will keep growing
- Need advanced features (loyalty, marketing automation, etc.)
Real risks:
- Painful for seasonal businesses: Tourism restaurants, Christmas/Valentine's specialists — you still pay monthly fees through slow seasons
- Contract locks you in: Want to switch in 6 months? 6-18 months still on the contract — keep paying
- Real cost understated: "NT$1,500/month" is the entry tier; advanced plans often NT$2,500-4,500
Math example: NT$2,000/month × 24 months = NT$48,000 total (excluding overage). 100 monthly bookings = NT$20 effective per booking.
Model B: Usage-based / per-booking (NT$2-5/booking, no monthly minimum, no contract)
Typical structure: NT$2-5 per completed booking, no monthly floor, cancel anytime.
Best for:
- Just starting out / volatile booking volume
- Strong seasonality, want to pay in line with revenue
- Afraid of contract lock-in
Real risks:
- At high volume may exceed Model A: 800 bookings × NT$3 = NT$2,400 > most Model A entry tiers
- No monthly fee = support priority sometimes lower (vendor-dependent) — verify support SLA in writing
Math example: NT$3/booking × 100 monthly = NT$300/month = NT$3,600/year. NT$20,400 savings vs Model A entry tier.
Model C: Commission (% of ticket, 3-10%)
Typical structure: Each completed booking pays 3-10% of the table's ticket. Common in international platforms.
Best for:
- High-ticket low-volume private dining / fine dining (50-100 bookings/month)
- Restaurants relying entirely on platform-driven customer acquisition (no own marketing)
Real risks:
- Eats margin: NT$2,000 ticket × 5% = NT$100/booking. 100 bookings = NT$10,000/month — 3x Model A's NT$3,000
- Platform-owned, not your customers: Customer data sits on platform, you can't take it
- Commission grows with you: Revenue scales → platform takes more, capping your upside
Math example: Avg ticket NT$1,500 × 5% × 100 bookings = NT$7,500/month. 25x Model B's NT$300/month.
Model D: Free + paid add-ons (basic free, advanced paid)
Typical structure: Core booking is free, premium features (SMS reminders, deposits, CRM) cost NT$500-2,000/month each.
Best for:
- Genuinely just testing whether you need a reservation system at all
- Tiny volume (< 30/month)
Real risks (most overlooked):
- Basic = no core no-show defense: Deposits + reminders are typically premium
- 2-3 add-ons turns it into Model A: NT$500 + NT$800 + NT$300 = often MORE than Model A directly
- "Free version" usually has competing-vendor ads or limits on guest-facing page — hurts your brand trust
- Upgrade lock-in on data: After using for a while, exporting customer data to switch is often deliberately friction
Break-even: which booking volume fits which model?
Using Model B (NT$3/booking) as the baseline, when does each other model win?
| Monthly bookings | Model B cost | When Model A wins | When Model C wins |
|---|---|---|---|
| 50 | NT$150 | Never (Model A starts at NT$1,500) | Never (even NT$1,000 ticket × 3% = NT$1,500 — 10x more) |
| 200 | NT$600 | Never | Never |
| 500 | NT$1,500 | Even with Model A entry; depends if Model A's extra features are worth it | Never |
| 1000 | NT$3,000 | Model A starts winning — but only if volume holds steady | Never (unless avg ticket < NT$200) |
| 2000+ | NT$6,000 | Model A clearly wins (NT$2,500-4,000) | Never |
Conclusion: Unless your monthly bookings exceed 1,000, Model B is almost always cheapest. Model C has no break-even point for Taiwan restaurants — commission is just too expensive.
Interactive TCO calculator
Input your actual numbers for an instant 1-year / 3-year / 5-year cost comparison of all 4 models:
👉 Reservation system TCO calculator
You need:
- Average monthly bookings (look at past 3 months)
- Average ticket price
- Expected years of use
30-second answer: "the cheapest model for your situation is X" with full comparison chart.
The hidden cost of "free" (most important section)
Model D (free + add-ons) is the most misleading — because "free" is in the title. In practice:
The 4 hidden costs of "free" reservation systems
- Core features missing: Deposit collection, auto-reminders, LINE push to guests — these are all paid. Without them = no no-show defense = lose 5-15% monthly revenue
- Customer data lock-in: Free tier rarely allows CSV export. Switching gets harder over time — effectively becomes a contract
- Guest-facing ads: Booking page shows competing restaurant ads or platform logos — hurts your brand trust
- Lower support priority: Free users aren't core customers — issues take longer
How to compute real TCO
Don't look at the headline price — sum up features you actually need.
Example: free + deposit feature NT$500 + SMS NT$300 + CRM NT$800 = NT$1,600/month = NT$19,200/year
vs same volume on Model B: 100 bookings × NT$3 × 12 = NT$3,600/year
= Model D's "free" actually costs 5.3x more than Model B
Best choice by restaurant type
| Restaurant type | Monthly bookings | Recommended | Why |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10-30 seats independent | 50-300 | Model B | Volume too small for monthly; lock-in is high risk |
| 30-80 seats mid-size | 200-800 | Model B | Still in Model B sweet spot; flexibility during slow weeks |
| Chains / multi-location | 1500+ | Model A (enterprise tier) | Volume justifies monthly |
| Private dining / fine dining | 50-100 | Model B (not C) | High ticket = Model C commission too aggressive |
| Tourism / seasonal | Off 50 / peak 500 | Model B | Off-season no monthly burn; maximum flexibility |
Real scenarios: 4 models compared across 6 booking volumes
Abstract tables are useful — actual scenarios are convincing. Below: 6 booking-volume tiers, full 36-month TCO comparison, including hidden costs.
Scenario 1: 50 bookings/month (just starting / small private dining)
| Model | Monthly | 36-mo TCO | Per booking |
|---|---|---|---|
| Usage-based (NT$3/booking) | NT$150 | NT$5,400 | NT$3 |
| Monthly contract (NT$2,000) | NT$2,000 | NT$72,000 | NT$40 |
| Commission 5% (avg NT$1,500) | NT$3,750 | NT$135,000 | NT$75 |
| Free + add-ons | NT$1,600 | NT$57,600 | NT$32 |
🏆 Usage-based is 13.3× cheaper than monthly contract, 25× cheaper than commission. Below 200 bookings/month, other models shouldn't be considered.
Scenario 2: 200 bookings/month (growing small restaurant)
| Model | Monthly | 36-mo TCO | Per booking |
|---|---|---|---|
| Usage-based | NT$600 | NT$21,600 | NT$3 |
| Monthly contract | NT$2,000 | NT$72,000 | NT$10 |
| Commission 5% | NT$15,000 | NT$540,000 | NT$75 |
| Free + add-ons | NT$1,600 | NT$57,600 | NT$8 |
🏆 Usage-based still wins by 3.3×. Commission at this volume is pure extraction.
Scenario 3: 500 bookings/month (steady mid-size)
| Model | Monthly | 36-mo TCO | Per booking |
|---|---|---|---|
| Usage-based | NT$1,500 | NT$54,000 | NT$3 |
| Monthly contract | NT$2,000 | NT$72,000 | NT$4 |
| Commission 5% | NT$37,500 | NT$1,350,000 | NT$75 |
| Free + add-ons | NT$1,600 | NT$57,600 | NT$3.2 |
🏆 Usage-based still wins, but monthly contract is closing (33% gap). Question: is your volume actually stable? How big is your seasonal swing?
Scenario 4: 1,000 bookings/month (chain) — break-even point
| Model | Monthly | 36-mo TCO | Per booking |
|---|---|---|---|
| Usage-based | NT$3,000 | NT$108,000 | NT$3 |
| Monthly contract | NT$2,500 | NT$90,000 | NT$2.5 |
| Commission 5% | NT$75,000 | NT$2,700,000 | NT$75 |
| Free + add-ons | NT$1,800 | NT$64,800 | NT$1.8 |
🏆 Monthly contract starts winning (17%). Free+add-ons looks cheapest on paper but watch hidden costs. This is where TCO math truly matters.
Scenario 5: 2,000+ bookings/month (multi-location chain)
| Model | Monthly | 36-mo TCO |
|---|---|---|
| Usage-based | NT$6,000 | NT$216,000 |
| Monthly contract (enterprise tier) | NT$3,500-4,500 | NT$126,000-162,000 |
| Commission 5% | NT$150,000+ | NT$5,400,000+ |
🏆 Monthly contract clearly wins (30-40% cheaper). This is the only volume where monthly truly fits. Chains should look at enterprise tier directly.
Scenario 6: Seasonal restaurant (low 100 / peak 800) — flexibility is everything
Annual avg 450/month, but distribution is extreme:
| Model | Low season | Peak season | Annual |
|---|---|---|---|
| Usage-based | NT$300 | NT$2,400 | NT$16,200 |
| Monthly contract | NT$2,000 (paid anyway) | NT$2,000 (overage extra) | NT$24,000-28,000 |
🏆 Usage-based saves 33-42%. Tourist-area, holiday-driven, outdoor restaurants should default to usage-based — monthly contract's lack of flexibility loses every time here.
All 6 scenarios at a glance (3-year TCO in NT$10K)
Usage-based Monthly contract Commission 5%
50/month ▌ 0.5 ████▏ 7.2 ██████▍ 13.5
200/month █▏ 2.2 ████▏ 7.2 ████████████████ 54
500/month ██▎ 5.4 ████▏ 7.2 ██████████████ 135 (overflow)
1,000/month ████▎ 10.8 ███▋ 9.0 ██████████████ 270 (overflow)
2,000/month ████████▌ 21.6 ████▊ 12.6 (omitted)
Seasonal █▌ 1.6 ██▍ 2.4-2.8 (omitted)
The usage→monthly break-even lands somewhere around 800-1,200 bookings/month, AND your volume must be stable (not dropping). Outside that, usage-based wins.
Why commission never wins
Note: commission lost every single scenario. Why commission is structurally bad in Taiwan F&B:
- NT$1,000 ticket × 5% = NT$50/booking — already 16× more than usage-based (NT$3)
- Commission scales with your revenue: success means platform takes more, forever
- Customer data sits on the platform, you can't take it
Commission only makes sense for "100% platform-dependent tourist restaurants" — and even then, marginal. Local restaurants shouldn't.
3-criterion decision framework
- When in doubt, pick usage-based: starting out, unstable volume, budget-sensitive, big seasonal swing — usage-based is always the safe bet
- Monthly contract only when all 3 hold: (a) ≥1,000 bookings/month steady (b) confident you won't switch within 6 months (c) you'll actually use the advanced features bundled
- Never pick commission (except in 100% platform-acquired tourist scenarios)
Use the TCO calculator with your real numbers for the 4-model comparison.
Bottom line: 3 things to remember
- Unless you exceed 1,000 monthly bookings, Model B (usage-based) is almost always cheapest
- "Free" reservation systems = costs hidden in add-ons. Adding 2-3 necessary add-ons typically costs 3-5x more than Model B
- Model C commission has no break-even point in Taiwan restaurants — higher ticket means platform takes more, longer-term punitive
Want to know which model fits your restaurant? Use the TCO calculator — 30-second answer.
Pricing isn't the only criterion. See 5 criteria for choosing a reservation system — refund policy, integrations, support all matter too.
If you want to try Model B's flexibility — Eatsy is usage-based (NT$3/booking, no monthly minimum, no contract): see Eatsy pricing.
🔗 Go deeper: complete reservation-system decision resources
📚 Reservation system selection cluster
- Restaurant Reservation System Buyer's Guide 2026: 5 Criteria — complete framework for evaluation
- Best Restaurant Reservation System Taiwan 2026: 6 Options Compared — market overview
- How to Choose: 5 Criteria + 3 Profile Decision Tree
💰 Deposit compliance & consumer law
🔧 Interactive calculators
🚀 Get started with Eatsy
- See Eatsy pricing — Model B usage-based, NT$3/booking
- Start free 30-day trial
Frequently Asked Questions
▸Monthly fee vs per-booking — which is cheaper?
It depends on volume. Under 1,000 monthly bookings: usage-based (NT$3/booking) almost always wins. Over 1,000 + steady: monthly starts winning. Use a TCO calculator with your real numbers — don't compare on headline price.
▸Are 'free' reservation systems actually free?
Almost never. Free tier = no deposits, reminders, or CRM (the actual no-show defense features). Adding 2-3 needed add-ons usually costs NT$1,500-2,000/month — 3-5x more than usage-based. Customer data often gets locked in too.
▸Who should use commission-based pricing?
Theoretically high-ticket low-volume fine dining / private dining. In practice for Taiwan, math rarely works: NT$1,500 ticket × 5% × 100 bookings = NT$7,500/month vs usage-based NT$300/month = 25x more. Only justified if you depend 100% on platform-driven customer acquisition.
▸What's the biggest risk of monthly-contract pricing?
2 risks: (1) Strong seasonality means paying monthly during slow seasons; (2) If you want to switch in 6 months, you still owe 6-18 more months. Prefer no-contract options first; only sign annual for discounts after trial confirms fit.
▸My booking volume isn't stable yet — which model?
100% Model B (usage-based). Early-stage volume is volatile — monthly fixed will burn money. Run usage-based for 6-12 months; only consider monthly when bookings stabilize above 800/month.
▸Are there cancellation fees when switching reservation systems?
Depends on contract. Monthly-with-contract often charges remaining months partially or fully. Usage-based usually has no cancellation fee. Always read 'early termination clause' before signing.
▸How is TCO (Total Cost of Ownership) calculated?
TCO = (monthly cost × months) + (setup fees) + (hidden costs like support delays). Monthly cost must sum ALL features you actually use — not just headline price. Calculator at /en/tools/reservation-system-tco does this automatically.
▸Do small restaurants really need a reservation system?
Two questions: (1) Monthly bookings > 50? Yes → yes. (2) No-shows cost > 5% revenue? Yes → yes. If yes, usage-based pricing (NT$3 × 50 = NT$150/month) pays back quickly via no-show reduction alone.
▸Why must I calculate TCO? Isn't the headline monthly fee enough?
Headline monthly fees mislead in 3 ways: (1) hidden add-ons: deposits, SMS, CRM are usually paid premium (2) overage fees: exceeding quota costs extra (3) contract lock-in: 12-24 month forced payment. TCO sums all this over your *actual* years of use. A 'NT$1,500/mo' system often has true TCO around NT$3,500/mo.
▸How much discount for 1-year contract? Worth it?
Typical 10-20% discount (NT$2,000 → NT$1,600-1,800). Seems like NT$200-400/mo saved, but you lose: (1) flexibility to switch (2) seasonal pause (3) negotiation leverage. Recommendation: only sign annual after 3 months of trial confirming high satisfaction AND stable volume.
▸What does 'free + add-ons' actually cost?
Free base = no deposit, no reminder, no CRM (the actual no-show defense). Adding 2-3 necessary add-ons usually totals NT$1,500-2,500/mo (effectively Model A). Worse: customer data often locked, switching has high export friction, guest-facing page may show competing-vendor ads. Look at TCO not headline — 'free' often costs 3-5× more than usage-based.
▸Is commission ever the right choice?
Almost never in Taiwan F&B. Commission break-even requires: (1) avg ticket ≤ NT$200 (2) ≥1,000 bookings/month (3) 100% platform-driven acquisition. Rarely all 3 hold simultaneously. In most scenarios commission is 25-100× more expensive than usage-based.
▸High volume vs unpredictable volume — which model?
Depends on certainty: (1) high + stable (chains, fixed flow) → monthly contract + enterprise tier (2) high + seasonal swing → usage-based (low-season flex, high-season cost-effective) (3) low volume → always usage-based (4) unpredictable → always usage-based. True break-even: 800-1,200 bookings/month AND projected stable for 12 months.