Loop vs Recharge (2026): The No-Per-Order-Fee Structure and What It Saves
Loop and Recharge start at the same USD 99 per month, but their transaction fees diverge in a way that favors Loop at almost every volume: Loop charges 1.0% with no per-order flat fee on its Starter plan, while Recharge charges 1.49% plus 19 cents per transaction. At the higher tier the gap widens - Loop Pro is USD 399 per month plus 0.75%, against Recharge Plus at USD 499 per month plus 1.34% plus 19 cents. On fees alone, Loop is cheaper than Recharge at every comparable tier, and the difference grows with order count.
The reason the comparison is not simply "pick Loop" is that fee structure is one input and ecosystem is another. Recharge is the incumbent with the deepest integration ecosystem and the largest body of third-party tooling built around it, and that breadth is what its fee premium buys. The real question is whether a brand's order economics make Loop's savings large enough to outweigh Recharge's ecosystem depth.
This guide compares Loop and Recharge on fees at real volumes, explains where the no-per-order-fee structure matters most, and covers the ecosystem trade-off the fee gap represents.
Fees side by side
| Recharge | Loop | |
|---|---|---|
| Free tier | $25/mo, first 50 subs (net-new only) | Free forever, up to 50 subscriptions |
| Entry paid | $99/mo + 1.49% + 19c (Starter) | $99/mo + 1.0%, no per-order fee (Starter) |
| Higher tier | $499/mo + 1.34% + 19c (Plus) | $399/mo + 0.75%, no per-order fee (Pro) |
| Migration | Standard | Free white-glove on every paid plan |
At the entry tier the base fee is identical at USD 99, so the entire difference is in the transaction fee: Loop's 1.0% against Recharge's 1.49% plus 19 cents. Loop is cheaper on both components - lower percentage and no flat fee - which means Loop Starter costs less than Recharge Starter at every order volume, not just some.
What the per-order fee costs
The 19-cent flat fee that Recharge charges and Loop does not is the structural difference, and its impact grows as average order value falls and order count rises.
For a brand at USD 40 average order value processing 1,000 subscription orders per month - USD 40,000 in billing - the comparison is:
- Recharge Starter: USD 99 + (1.49% of USD 40,000) + (USD 0.19 x 1,000) = USD 99 + USD 596 + USD 190 = USD 885
- Loop Starter: USD 99 + (1.0% of USD 40,000) = USD 99 + USD 400 = USD 499
Loop is USD 386 per month cheaper, roughly 44%, at the same billing volume. The percentage difference accounts for USD 196 of that, and the absent flat fee for USD 190 - nearly half the saving comes from the per-order fee alone.
The gap widens as average order value drops. A brand shipping USD 20 replenishment orders processes twice as many orders for the same billing, doubling the flat-fee saving. This is exactly the profile - high order volume, low average order value - where the no-per-order-fee structure matters most, and where Loop's pricing was designed to win.
Where the fee gap does not decide it
If Loop is cheaper at every tier, the reason to choose Recharge has to be non-price, and it usually is ecosystem. Recharge's integration depth is the widest in the category: more apps built to work with it, more agencies experienced in it, more adjacent tooling assuming it. A brand whose stack depends on a specific Recharge integration, or whose team is deep in the Recharge ecosystem, may find that breadth worth the fee premium even knowing Loop is cheaper.
Recharge's position as the market leader is also a form of risk reduction. It is the platform least likely to be acquired, sunset, or outgrown, and for a brand that values that stability the premium is an insurance cost rather than a pure fee.
Loop closes part of the switching-cost gap with free white-glove migration on every paid plan, which removes one of the main frictions of leaving Recharge. But migration effort is only one switching cost; retraining a team and re-integrating a stack around a new platform are real regardless of who pays for the data move.
Which brand fits which
Loop fits a brand where the fee structure is the binding factor: high order volume, low average order value, and a stack that does not depend on a Recharge-specific integration. For that brand the savings are large and compounding, and the ecosystem depth it gives up is depth it was not using.
Recharge fits a brand that values ecosystem and stability over fee optimization: one with existing Recharge integrations, an agency or team invested in the platform, or a preference for the market leader's lower platform risk. For that brand the fee premium buys something real.
The number that should sit alongside the fee comparison is what churn is costing and what each platform's retention tooling recovers against the subscriber base - because a platform that is cheaper on fees but weaker on retention can cost more overall. That number is not on either pricing page. Finsi computes it from subscription and payment data across Loop, Recharge, or any platform, as the analytics layer measuring the decision rather than competing in it.
Related reading: best Shopify subscription apps covers the full field, Recharge pricing and fees breaks down Recharge in detail, and Recharge alternatives covers the other options.
Andrei Rebrov is Co-CEO of Finsi, where he builds AI-powered analytics for subscription and DTC e-commerce. He writes on subscription economics, LTV modeling, cohort analysis, and retention metrics.