The True Cost of Auction Platforms in 2026

For any auction house operating online sales in 2026, the choice of bidding platform is one of the most consequential financial decisions on the books. The fees may appear modest at first glance, but once you account for per-auction charges, commission percentages, featured listing supplements, and VAT, the annual outlay can run into five figures with surprising ease.

Understanding the landscape requires a clear-eyed look at what the major platforms actually charge, and what houses receive in return.

The Ownership Landscape

The UK online auction market is dominated by a small number of platforms, though the ownership structure is more concentrated than many auctioneers realise. Auction Technology Group, the publicly listed company behind The Saleroom, also owns i-bidder, Lotissimo, and the American platform LiveAuctioneers. What appears to be a competitive marketplace is, in several respects, an ecosystem controlled by a single parent company.

EasyLive Auctions operates independently and has carved out a loyal following among smaller and mid-sized houses. Its fee model differs meaningfully from ATG's approach, offering buyers either a percentage of the hammer price or a flat fee of around three pounds per lot won. This simplicity appeals to houses that want transparency when explaining charges to their bidders.

What The Saleroom Actually Costs

Industry feedback suggests that The Saleroom's pricing for a typical house includes a per-auction fee in the region of thirteen hundred and fifty pounds, with additional charges of around three hundred and fifty pounds for featured lot placements. On top of this, a commission of approximately six per cent of hammer is applied to successful online bids, with VAT added to buyer premiums as standard.

For a house running fortnightly sales, these costs accumulate quickly. Experienced auctioneers report that the annual bill from a single platform can comfortably exceed thirty thousand pounds before any other marketing or operational costs are considered.

Comparing the Fee Models

The fundamental difference between EasyLive and The Saleroom lies not merely in the quantum of fees but in who bears the cost. EasyLive's model places the charge primarily on the buyer, which means the house's net hammer proceeds are less affected. The Saleroom's commission model, by contrast, directly reduces the house's take from each online lot.

This distinction matters enormously when calculating true cost of sale. A lot hammered at two hundred pounds on The Saleroom may yield twelve pounds less to the house in platform commission alone, before VAT and any featured lot surcharges. On EasyLive, the house's exposure to platform fees on that same lot is negligible.

Hidden Costs Worth Examining

Beyond the headline figures, several less obvious costs deserve attention:

• Integration fees for linking platform bidding to in-house auction software
• Staff time required to manage lot uploads, imagery, and condition reports across multiple platforms
• The opportunity cost of exclusive arrangements that prevent listing on competing services
• Payment processing fees on transactions settled through the platform's own payment infrastructure

One house noted that the administrative burden of maintaining listings on two platforms simultaneously required roughly fifteen additional staff hours per sale, a cost that rarely appears in any platform comparison spreadsheet.

Drouot and the French Market

Drouot, the French platform, has been actively approaching UK houses with attractive terms — in many cases waiving listing fees entirely. The Telebids Team, who have been listing with Drouot alongside their other platforms, report that the platform's buyers are particularly strong for designer goods, luxury items, jewellery, and watches. They estimate that Drouot has added between ten and twenty thousand pounds in additional hammer revenue per sale, with minimal cost given their free listing arrangement.

For houses with stock in those categories, Drouot is worth serious consideration. The platform's buyer base is distinct from the domestic UK platforms, meaning the additional bids represent genuinely new demand rather than redistribution of existing interest.

Assessing Value, Not Just Price

It would be reductive to evaluate platforms on fees alone. The Saleroom's reach, particularly among international buyers of fine art and antiques, is difficult to replicate through other channels. For houses selling high-value specialist lots, the additional bidder competition generated by a larger platform may more than justify the higher fees.

Conversely, a general household and collectables sale may see little benefit from premium platform placement. Industry analysis suggests that for lots with hammer prices consistently below one hundred pounds, the economics of high-fee platforms become increasingly difficult to justify.

The question is not which platform is cheapest, but which delivers the best return on total cost of sale for your particular mix of stock and clientele.

Practical Recommendations

For houses reviewing their platform arrangements, several steps are worth considering. First, compile a genuine total cost analysis covering at least six months of sales, including all fees, staff time, and payment processing charges. Second, request a formal rate review from your current provider, as published rates are frequently negotiable. Third, consider whether a secondary platform for specific sale categories might deliver better returns than relying on a single provider for all stock types.

The platform market is evolving, and houses that treat these arrangements as fixed overhead rather than negotiable commercial relationships are almost certainly paying more than they need to.