Proposal Software Payment Processing Fees

Updated August 6, 2026 · 8 tools checked against their own pages

4 of the 8 tools here take something when a client pays through them, in 3 genuinely different shapes — and only 2 of them publish enough for you to know what collecting a payment actually costs. One charges a percentage of the transaction with a cap on the bank route. One charges a flat amount per payment received whatever its size, and pushes the card fee onto the client. Two publish their own slice and point at the payment processor for the rest, which is a real third state between publishing and not publishing. The remaining 4 charge nothing because they process no payments at all. Every rate below is quoted from the vendor’s own page and dated.

The subscription is not the cost. 4 of the 8 tools here take a cut of every client payment that passes through them, and 2 of those publish the whole charge; the other 2 publish their own share and point at the payment processor for the rest, so no all-in figure for them appears on this site. Where a vendor states that a fee is borne by the client rather than the firm, it is reported in its own column and never folded into the firm’s total — and never dropped either, because it is still a real cost of collecting the money.

RangeYourself has no affiliate relationship with any tool on this page as of August 6, 2026: every link here goes straight to the vendor’s own site and earns us nothing. We may pursue one in this category, and if we do we will say so here. Either way the ordering follows published prices and published fees, and a vendor that pays nothing is listed on exactly the same basis as one that does. See how we make money and our editorial standards.

Every charge, in the shape the vendor publishes it

The same month of billing, priced through each one

a three-person firm with thirty active clients collecting twenty thousand dollars a month across ten payments of two thousand dollars. Arithmetic on published rates, nothing else.

• Ignition: by card, Credit or debit card, domestic: 2.5% plus $0.3 on 10 payments of $2,000 is $503 a month, paid by the firm. By bank transfer, Bank account, ACH or direct debit: 1% plus $0.3, capped at $5 on 10 payments of $2,000 is $50 a month, paid by the firm.
• PandaDoc: by card, PandaDoc's own markup on card payments through Stripe: 0% plus $0 on 10 payments of $2,000 is $0 a month, paid by the firm — and this is PandaDoc's own share only, with the processor's rate published elsewhere. By bank transfer, Pay by Bank (ACH) through Stripe: 1.5% on 10 payments of $2,000 is $300 a month, paid by the firm — and this is PandaDoc's own share only, with the processor's rate published elsewhere.
• Anchor: by card, Anchor's fee on each payment received: $5 a payment on 10 payments of $2,000 is $50 a month, paid by the firm. Credit or debit card fee: 2.9% plus $0.3 on 10 payments of $2,000 is $583 a month, paid by the client.
• Qwilr: by card, QwilrPay application fee, Starter: 0.25% on 10 payments of $2,000 is $50 a month, paid by the firm — and this is Qwilr's own share only, with the processor's rate published elsewhere.

Across the 2 vendors publishing the whole charge, the firm’s share of $20,000 of card payments runs from $50 on Anchor to $503 on Ignition. Read the next sentence before quoting that: Anchor states that its card fee is paid by the client, at $583 a month on the same invoices. Added together, the two arrangements cost somebody $633 and $652 respectively. The money is close to the same. What differs is whose side of the invoice it lands on, and that is a decision rather than a discount.

Who bears each fee

6 of the 7 published charges are stated as borne by the firm and 1 by the client. A client-borne fee never enters the firm’s total on this site, and it is never left out of the description either: it is money leaving the transaction, and a comparison that silently drops it makes one vendor look far cheaper than it is.

• Ignition, Credit or debit card, domestic: paid by the firm. “"ccDomesticPercentage":"2.5"” Ignition publishes a separate, higher rate of 3.6% for Amex and international cards.
• Ignition, Bank account, ACH or direct debit: paid by the firm. “"bankAccountPercentage":"1"” Ignition states a cap of $5.00 on this fee per transaction, which is what makes bank collection so much cheaper than card at invoice sizes above a few hundred dollars.
• PandaDoc, PandaDoc's own markup on card payments through Stripe: paid by the firm. “PandaDoc transaction fee: $0.00 (subject to change).” PandaDoc publishes its own take as zero and a $0.50 minimum charge, and does not publish Stripe's underlying card rate anywhere. So its own share is knowable and the cost of collecting a card payment through PandaDoc is not.
• PandaDoc, Pay by Bank (ACH) through Stripe: paid by the firm. “Payments settle in 2–4 business days at up to 1.5% per transaction” Published as an upper bound rather than a rate. PandaDoc states no fixed component and no cap.
• Anchor, Anchor's fee on each payment received: paid by the firm. “When you receive a payment, and only then, Anchor deducts $5 from the funds you receive.” A flat amount per payment, independent of the payment's size. Anchor states it is deducted from the funds received rather than invoiced separately.
• Anchor, Credit or debit card fee: paid by the client. “2.9% + $0.30 Credit/Debit Card Fee” Anchor states this fee is borne by the client rather than the firm. It is therefore never added to what the firm pays on this site, and it is never omitted from the description of what a card payment costs somebody.
• Qwilr, QwilrPay application fee, Starter: paid by the firm. “QwilrPay Application Fee: This may appear as an "application fee" or "platform fee" in the Stripe invoice. This is the fee that Qwilr charges, per transaction, for access to QwilrPay. At a base level: Starter: 0.25% per transaction” Qwilr's own take only. It states separately that the payment gateway processing fee is set by Stripe and points at Stripe's page rather than restating a rate, so the all-in cost of collecting a payment through Qwilr is not published by Qwilr.

The middle state: publishing your own share and pointing elsewhere

PandaDoc and Qwilr publish what the vendor itself adds and explicitly defer to the payment processor for the rate underneath it. That is honest and it is not the same as publishing what a payment costs. One of them publishes its own markup as exactly zero, which is a better disclosure than most and still leaves the total unknown.

• PandaDoc: PandaDoc publishes its own share of a card payment ($0.00, with a $0.50 minimum charge) and explicitly does not publish the processor's rate, pointing at the gateway instead. For QuickBooks Payments it links to Intuit's own fee page rather than restating a figure. “Minimum charge: $0.50”
• Qwilr: Qwilr separates its own application fee from the processor's rate and publishes only the first, pointing at Stripe for the second. Its application fee falls as the tier rises: 0.25% on Starter, 0.09% on Growth, 0.05% on Scale. “Payment Gateway Processing Fee: These fees are set by Stripe and can be found here.”

No all-in figure for PandaDoc and Qwilr appears anywhere on this site. The processor’s public rate is easy to look up; substituting it here would attribute to the vendor a number the vendor deliberately did not state, and that is the same error as quoting a review site’s price for a company that publishes none.

The tools that take nothing

4 of the 8, and this is not a gap in their disclosure. They are proposal and document software; the payment goes to a processor you contract with yourself, on that processor’s terms.

• GoProposal: GoProposal publishes no payment-processing fee of its own, and its pricing page contains no reference to collecting client payments at all. That is the expected state for a tool that produces proposals and engagement letters rather than billing through them, and it is not opacity.“30-day Free Trial”
• Proposify: Proposify publishes no payment-processing rate of its own. Its pricing page names Stripe only in the context of PCI compliance, and states no percentage or fixed fee anywhere.“Proposify uses Stripe to process payments. Stripe has been audited by a PCI-certified auditor and is certified to PCI Service Provider Level 1.”
• Better Proposals: Better Proposals publishes no payment-processing fee of its own. It names Stripe, GoCardless and PayPal as integrations and states no rate for any of them, which is the expected state for a tool that hands the payment to a processor rather than billing through itself.“Integrate with Stripe, GoCardless, and PayPal and get paid directly from your documents.”
• Nusii: Nusii publishes no payment-processing rate of its own. Its pricing page links to a Stripe integration page and states no percentage or fixed fee anywhere.“Try any Nusii plan for 14 days free.”

The consequence for a cost comparison is that these tools’ subscriptions are not comparable with the billing platforms’ totals without adding whatever you pay your own processor — a figure neither group publishes and this site will not invent.

What the whole thing comes to

How this is verified

Every figure on this page was read from the vendor’s own page and is stored with that page’s URL, a verbatim quote, and the date it was checked (most recent: August 6, 2026). 2 of these 8 pricing pages could not be read with a plain HTTP request and were read in a browser at the same URL, with each billing option selected in turn. Payment fees are only counted against a firm where the vendor states the firm bears them; where a vendor states the client bears one, it is published separately rather than added or hidden. Where a vendor publishes only its own share of a payment fee and points at a processor for the rest, no all-in total is computed, because the vendor has not published one. Totals are arithmetic on published figures only, and where a vendor prints a yearly total but no monthly equivalent, dividing that total by twelve is labelled where it appears. See our editorial standards and how we verify.

How fees are counted. A payment fee is only counted against a firm where the vendor states the firm bears it. Where a vendor states the client bears it, the amount is published and reported separately rather than added to the firm's total or quietly dropped. Where a vendor publishes only its own share and points at a payment processor for the rest, its share is shown and no all-in total is computed, because the vendor has not published one.

Which tools are in it. The eight proposal and engagement-billing tools an accounting, consulting or agency buyer is most likely to shortlist, chosen before any price was read and not filtered afterwards. The set deliberately spans both halves of the category: tools that produce a proposal and hand the payment to somebody else, and tools that bill the client through the proposal themselves. Nobody is excluded for being expensive, for charging nothing, or for paying nothing.

Frequently asked questions

Proposal Software Cost Index · Proposal software under $50 a month · How much does Ignition cost? · Ignition vs PandaDoc