Five real platforms, compared on published fees, verified requirements, and honest trade-offs. Where a competitor does not publish something, this page says so instead of guessing. Where AURA CAPITAL is weaker, it says that too.
No completed transactions. The platform is pre-launch and publishes illustrative demonstration listings only.
None. No escrow arrangement is in place and no status implies otherwise.
No CPA-prepared financials, no CIM production, no negotiated representation. Every competitor on this page offers more hands-on support than we do.
| Commission model | Published in full, calculated marginally in integer cents, verified against seven published test cases on every build. No listing fee. No monthly subscription. No minimum fee. |
| Seller requirement | $100,000 reported annual net profit (configurable), applied at intake. |
| Buyer requirement | $250,000 minimum declared capital, human-reviewed application, versioned NDA with recorded timestamp and IP. |
| Verification | Self-reported at intake. Independent verification is a separate documented step and is labelled distinctly. |
| Escrow | None. No escrow arrangement is in place and no status implies otherwise. |
The two platforms differ most in fee structure. Acquire.com charges a published success-based closing fee plus a monthly listing subscription. AURA CAPITAL publishes a single marginal Double Lehman scale with no monthly listing subscription, but has no completed transactions to point to.
Full comparisonFlippa's model involves an upfront listing package plus a success fee. AURA CAPITAL uses one published marginal commission scale and no upfront listing charge.
Full comparisonBoth platforms use marginal (blended) commissions rather than a flat percentage, which makes them more directly comparable than most pairings on this site.
Full comparisonThis is the comparison on this site with the widest evidence gap: Quiet Light does not publish a fee schedule on a public pricing page, so its fee structure is described here only as reported by third parties.
Full comparisonThis is less a like-for-like fee comparison than a comparison of service models: managed advisory versus a self-service marketplace with published pricing.
Full comparison| Platform | Published fee model | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| AURA CAPITAL | Marginal Double Lehman scale: 10% → 8% → 6% → 4% → 2%, no listing fee | published |
| Acquire.com | 8% closing fee under $250k · 7% at $250k–$1M · 6% above $1M, plus a monthly listing fee | published |
| Flippa | Listing packages from $29, success fees from 5%; both scale with asset value | published |
| Empire Flippers | $10,000 minimum; 15% to $700k, 8% to $5M, 2.5% above $5M (blended) | published |
| Quiet Light | Not published on a public pricing page; third parties report up to ~10%, tiered above $1M | unconfirmed |
| FE International | No upfront fees; success fee on a sliding scale, published as starting from 3% | published |
Run your own sale price through our calculator, then compare the number with the published schedule of whichever platform you are considering. That is a more reliable test than any comparison article — including this one.