Managed IT Services Pricing Benchmarks: Hong Kong, China, and Singapore (2026)

Key finding in one paragraph: managed IT does not cost roughly the same across Hong Kong, Mainland China and Singapore. On Brocent's own published per-user rate card the same plan tier costs about four times more per user in Hong Kong than in Mainland China, while Hong Kong and Singapore sit within about 10% of each other. The gap is not margin — it tracks each market's labour cost stack, and collapses to under 2x on the tooling-heavy parts of the same rate card.

Key Findings

• The per-user spread across the three markets is about 4x, and it is real. On Brocent's own published managed IT rate card, the entry-level Startup plan is HK$855 per user per month in Hong Kong, S$126 in Singapore, and RMB¥178 in Mainland China — roughly US$109, US$99 and US$26 respectively at the exchange rates that rate card was last converted at. Hong Kong and Singapore are close. China is a different order of magnitude.
• The spread narrows dramatically on the parts of the service that are tooling rather than people. The same rate card prices cloud backup at HK$133, S$18.70 and RMB¥63 per device per month — a Hong Kong-to-China ratio of roughly 1.8x, against roughly 4x on the per-user plan. Where a line item is mostly software and licensing, geography matters far less than where it is mostly engineer time.
• There is no credible public per-user managed IT benchmark for Mainland China. Figures circulating for Hong Kong and Singapore come overwhelmingly from vendor content-marketing blogs, not from a named survey with a published methodology; for Mainland China even that thin layer is largely absent.
• Response speed, not scope, is often the biggest single lever on the number. Brocent publishes a 1x / 1.5x / 2x consumption multiplier across its 8×5, 8×7 and 24×7×365 tiers — the same work costs twice as much at the fastest tier as at the slowest.
• Almost nobody publishes anything. In Brocent's own 12-market pricing study, every enterprise-tier competitor checked published no pricing at all. That is the most important context for any benchmark article on this subject, including this one.

Buyers evaluating managed IT across these three markets run into the same problem: the market does not publish prices, so there is nothing to benchmark against. Search for "managed IT services pricing Hong Kong" and the results are almost entirely vendor blogs quoting each other's ranges — no named survey, no methodology, no disclosure of what scope those ranges assume. Ask three providers for a quote and you get three numbers built on three different assumptions about SLA, headcount, device count and security depth.

This report does not solve that by inventing a survey. It takes one provider's actual published, market-specific rate card — Brocent's own — states clearly that it is list pricing rather than independent research, and uses it as a spine to explain what drives the differences between these markets. Where an external figure is used, it is named and its reliability stated. Where no reliable figure exists, the gap is flagged rather than filled.

Brocent was founded in Beijing in 2007, has run a Hong Kong office since 2016, and has been headquartered in Singapore since 2021. These are the three markets it prices most granularly, which is why they are the three compared here.

Why Managed IT Pricing Differs So Much Across Three Neighbouring Markets

Hong Kong, Shenzhen and Singapore are within a few hours' flight of each other, sell into overlapping client bases, and deliver broadly similar technical work. It is reasonable to expect their managed IT pricing to differ by roughly the cost-of-living gap between them. It does not — on the per-user plans the gap is far wider than that would predict, and understanding why is most of the value in a benchmark like this one.

The clearest explanation available is not a third-party study but Brocent's own prior published research. The Wage-to-Rate Gap: Asia IT Field Services Pricing, Q3 2026 — a 12-market study comparing IT support engineer wages against published managed-service and field-service rate cards, and Brocent's own research rather than independent analysis — found that the ratio between what a provider bills and what a comparably-skilled engineer earns ranges from roughly 0.6x to 5x depending on the market. There is no industry-standard markup. For the three markets in scope here, that study put Hong Kong at roughly 2.2x, Mainland China at roughly 1.6x, and Singapore at roughly 1.0x — near-exact parity between Brocent's own published Singapore dedicated-engineer rate and the local desktop support engineer wage benchmark it was measured against.

Two things follow from those multiples, and both are counter-intuitive.

First, the market with the highest absolute prices is not the market with the fattest margin. Hong Kong prices highest in absolute terms and carries the widest multiple of the three, but the multiple is doing work: it is absorbing a cost stack — standby capacity for SLA guarantees, bench cost, tooling and licensing, travel, statutory employer contributions, and management overhead — before any profit is counted. Singapore, at roughly parity, is the market where "the client is being overcharged relative to labour cost" is the least defensible reading of the data, despite Singapore being the second most expensive market of the three in absolute terms.

Second, Mainland China's much lower absolute price is not primarily a quality signal or a loss-leader. It is what a fragmented, price-competitive provider ecosystem does to pricing when the underlying labour cost is also lower. Brocent's own study noted that markets with thin, price-competitive SME provider ecosystems can end up pricing at or below what a comparably-skilled engineer costs to employ — a structurally thin-margin environment rather than a bargain someone left on the table.

What "Managed IT Services" Actually Includes at Each Price Point

Any pricing comparison that skips scope is worthless, because "managed IT" is not a defined term. The most common reason two quotes differ by 3x in the same city is that they are quoting two different services under the same label.

On Brocent's published plan structure, thirteen items are included at every tier from entry-level upward: 24/7 NOC monitoring, help desk, managed firewall, patch management, base antivirus and EDR, backup and disaster recovery including immutable backup, password and credential management, dark web monitoring, DMARC monitoring, web content filtering, a named vCIO and technology roadmap, customer-owned documentation and credentials, and SLA guarantees. Two things are explicitly not in the base plan at most tiers: mobile device management is an add-on at every tier, and incident response beyond base antivirus and EDR is bundled only on the top Enterprise tier and is an add-on below it. Full service-scope detail sits on the Managed Services page.

That structure maps onto three broad price points the market actually sells at, and a quote's position on this ladder explains more of its number than its geography does.

Three Scope Levels That Explain Most Price Differences

• Helpdesk-only. Reactive user support, sometimes patching, usually no proactive monitoring and no security operations beyond antivirus. The cheapest thing that can honestly be called managed IT, and frequently what the lowest number in a comparison set is quoting.
• Full managed with proactive NOC. Continuous infrastructure monitoring, patching, backup and DR, credential management, plus a strategic layer — the vCIO or equivalent — that owns a roadmap rather than only closing tickets. This is where most published per-user figures implicitly sit, Brocent's included.
• Security-bundled. Managed detection and response, a security operations centre, vulnerability management, awareness training and a fractional CISO. In Brocent's structure these sit outside the base plan as add-ons or custom-quoted services — so a per-user number that appears to include them is quoting a different scope, not a comparable one.

Tier differences within a plan family are not only about price. On Brocent's published tiers, complimentary onboarding hours scale from 1 hour at Startup to 5 at Established, 10 at Growth and 20 at Enterprise; Established adds a dedicated account manager; Growth adds a dedicated service desk agent; Enterprise adds a dedicated infrastructure support engineer, IT vendor management for up to ten vendors, and a dedicated named senior vCIO at 20 hours per month. The per-user number rises across those tiers partly because scope deepens and partly because named, dedicated people are attached to the account.

Hong Kong Pricing Benchmarks

Hong Kong is the most expensive of the three markets on Brocent's own published rate card, and the one where the gap between published figures and actual quotes is widest, because so little is published at all.

What Brocent publishes for Hong Kong — its own list pricing, not independent research — is a per-user, per-month managed plan at HK$855.14 for the Startup tier (1–5 employees), HK$1,247.40 for Established (5–300 employees), and HK$1,561.21 for Growth (10–500 employees), with the Enterprise tier custom-quoted. These figures derive from a USD-denominated rate card converted at an exchange rate cached in August 2026 — approximately US$109, US$159 and US$199 per user per month respectively. Anyone reading this well after publication should treat the local-currency figures as subject to FX movement rather than as fixed.

Beyond the per-user plans, buyers can compare against Brocent's published market-agnostic rates on the pricing page: ad-hoc on-demand support at US$59–98 for the first hour with a two-hour minimum, Basic Care at US$45 per hour including four on-site hours, Hyper Care at US$180 per device per year, and stand-alone NOC monitoring at US$35 per month.

Hourly on-site and dedicated-engineer rates are a different question from the per-user contract pricing covered here, and Brocent has already published a market-by-market breakdown of them — call-out rates, dedicated-engineer monthly cost, skill-level multipliers, volume discounting and tax — in The 2026 Asia IT Services Rate Benchmark. Those tables are not restated here.

What the external market publishes for Hong Kong is thin and should be treated as directional only. A number of 2026 MSP industry sources — Kaseya, Datapath, mspcompanies.us and similar vendor blogs — commonly cite a global managed IT range of roughly US$100–400 per user per month, and an Asia-Pacific range of roughly US$80–180 per user per month covering Hong Kong and Singapore. These are vendor content-marketing estimates, not a named survey with a published methodology or sample, and are best read as "commonly cited to be in the range of" rather than as measured fact. Their main use is as a sanity check: Brocent's Hong Kong Startup tier at roughly US$109 sits near the bottom of the commonly-cited global range and inside the commonly-cited APAC range, which at least suggests the published figure is not an outlier.

The structural reason Hong Kong prices where it does is the one set out above: the widest bill-rate-to-wage multiple of the three markets, roughly 2.2x on Brocent's own prior research, absorbing a cost stack a lower-cost market does not carry in the same proportion. Market context sits on the Hong Kong page.

Mainland China Pricing Benchmarks

Mainland China is where a benchmark article has to be most careful: the temptation to fill an evidence gap with a confident-sounding number is highest exactly where the evidence is thinnest.

The gap, stated plainly: there is no reliable public per-user managed IT services benchmark for Mainland China. Not a weak one — effectively none. The vendor-blog layer that at least exists for Hong Kong and Singapore is largely absent for China, and no named survey with a disclosed methodology covers per-user managed IT contract pricing in the market. Any article quoting a confident per-user China figure without naming its source should be treated with suspicion, and this report is not going to become one of those.

What can be stated is Brocent's own published China pricing — again, one provider's list pricing rather than a market benchmark. The same three plan tiers price at RMB¥177.92, RMB¥257.45 and RMB¥357.19 per user per month for Startup, Established and Growth respectively, with Enterprise custom-quoted. At the exchange rate the rate card was converted at, that is roughly US$26, US$38 and US$53 per user per month.

That is the finding that will surprise most readers: on the same rate card, with the same thirteen inclusions, China's entry tier is roughly a quarter of Hong Kong's. The ratio holds across tiers — roughly 4.1x at Startup, 4.2x at Established and 3.8x at Growth. Singapore-to-China runs slightly narrower at roughly 3.4–3.8x. Three things explain that gap, and none is a quality difference in the underlying work.

• Labour cost base. Brocent's own wage-to-rate research put a China L1 support engineer's monthly wage at roughly US$1,250–1,667, against roughly US$1,872–2,218 for Hong Kong and roughly US$4,201 for Singapore. The wage gap alone accounts for a substantial part of the price gap.
• A thinner bill-rate multiple on top of that lower base. China's roughly 1.6x sits below Hong Kong's roughly 2.2x, so the lower wage base is being multiplied by a smaller number. Those two effects compound rather than offset.
• Provider-ecosystem competition. China's SME IT services market is fragmented and price-competitive in a way Hong Kong's and Singapore's are not, which compresses margins structurally rather than temporarily.

There is one further China-specific consideration that does not show up in any per-user figure and materially affects the total cost of the arrangement: invoicing structure. A foreign-invested enterprise in China generally needs fapiao-compliant invoicing from a domestic entity for costs to be deductible, which is why Brocent operates a dual-entity structure — a Hong Kong entity and a mainland entity — rather than billing everything cross-border. A quote that looks cheaper but cannot issue the right invoice type is not actually cheaper once the tax treatment is accounted for, and this is worth confirming explicitly rather than assuming. Market context sits on the China page.

Singapore Pricing Benchmarks

Singapore sits between Hong Kong and Mainland China in absolute price, but much closer to Hong Kong than the cost-of-living difference might suggest — and it is the market where the underlying economics are most transparent.

Brocent's own published Singapore pricing is S$126.36 per user per month for Startup, S$185.08 for Established, and S$227.20 for Growth, with Enterprise custom-quoted — roughly US$99, US$145 and US$178 at the converted rate. That puts Singapore at roughly 90% of Hong Kong's price at every tier: 1.10x at Startup, 1.10x at Established, and 1.12x at Growth, all in Hong Kong's favour. For two markets often assumed to be interchangeable on cost, a consistent ~10% gap in the same direction across all three tiers is a more precise answer than most buyers expect to get.

What makes Singapore analytically interesting is the wage side. Brocent's own prior research found Singapore to be the one market in that 12-market study where the bill-rate-to-wage multiple effectively disappeared: a published dedicated-engineer rate of about US$4,160 per month against a local desktop support engineer average total pay of about US$4,201 per month. Two explanations were offered and both remain plausible. Singapore's cost base — housing, employer CPF contributions, general cost of living — is already embedded in what local salary surveys report as "the wage." And Singapore increasingly functions as a regional command centre, with routine remote-eligible L1 and L2 work serviced from lower-cost markets, leaving harder-to-offshore senior on-premises work priced locally — which compresses the multiple when benchmarked against an entry-level wage figure.

For a buyer the implication is specific: in Singapore, pushing on rate has less room to move than in a market with a wider multiple, because there is less spread between price and underlying cost. The more productive negotiation there is usually about scope, SLA tier and what gets delivered from where. Market context sits on the Singapore page.

The same directional vendor-blog range applies here as for Hong Kong — a commonly-cited APAC figure of roughly US$80–180 per user per month, unverified and not from a named survey. Brocent's Singapore tiers at roughly US$99–178 sit inside it: a weak sanity check, not a validation.

Managed IT vs. Pay-As-You-Go vs. Project Rates — Comparing Delivery Models

Market is only one of the variables. Delivery model frequently changes the total more than geography does, and the models below are genuinely different commercial products.

How the Delivery Models Actually Compare

• Per-user monthly managed plans. Predictable cost, broadest scope, minimum 12-month term on Brocent's published terms. Best when the client wants someone to own the whole stack. The trade-off is commitment: a fixed monthly cost whether or not the month was busy.
• Pay-as-you-go and token blocks. No long-term commitment. Brocent publishes ad-hoc on-demand support at US$59–98 for the first hour with a two-hour minimum, plus pre-purchased token blocks valid for 12 months. Published token pricing shows a consistent volume discount: per-token cost falls by roughly 22% from the smallest published block to the largest — and by an almost identical percentage in all three markets, which suggests volume scaling is a uniform policy rather than negotiated market by market. Best for satellite offices and unpredictable workloads; worse for anything needing continuous proactive coverage, because nothing happens between calls.
• Per-device annual plans. Hyper Care at US$180 per device per year and Basic Care at US$45 per hour with four on-site hours included sit between the two models above. Best when the estate rather than the headcount is what is being managed.
• Project and professional-services rates. Discrete, scoped engagements: wireless site survey from US$1,200 per site, office IT setup from US$2,500 per project, IT relocation from US$1,800, Microsoft Teams deployment from US$800, data-centre rack and stack from US$400 per rack, IT assessment and audit from US$3,800 per engagement for an SME under 20 users, penetration testing from US$3,500, and IT onboarding and knowledge transfer from US$1,000. These sit alongside a managed contract rather than inside it.

The distinction that matters most is that a per-user managed plan and a block of pre-purchased hours are not substitutes priced differently — they are different risk allocations. In a managed plan the provider carries the risk of a bad month; in a token model the client does. A comparison that treats the cheaper of the two as the better deal has not priced that difference.

What Actually Drives the Number You'll Be Quoted

Across all three markets, the same five variables move a quote more than anything else. Understanding them turns three incomparable numbers into a comparison.

SLA tier is usually the largest single lever, and it is quantifiable. Brocent publishes three tiers with explicit consumption multipliers: normal business hours (8×5) with a 2-hour P1 response, 4-hour P2 and next-business-day on-site, at 1 token per hour; extended hours (8×7) with a 1-hour P1, 2-hour P2 and same-day on-site, at 1.5 tokens per hour; and 24×7×365 with a 15-minute P1, 1-hour P2 and 4-hour on-site response, at 2 tokens per hour. The same work costs twice as much under the fastest published tier as under the slowest. That is consistent with what Brocent's own 12-market study found among the only two vendors anywhere in that study that publish response-time tiers at all: roughly +24–29% for a same-day tier and +86% up to 3x for the fastest, against a next-business-day baseline.

Headcount and tier banding. Per-user pricing is banded, not linear. Brocent's published bands run 1–5 employees at Startup, 5–300 at Established, 10–500 at Growth and 25-plus at Enterprise, and they overlap deliberately — a 40-person company could legitimately sit at Established or Growth depending on what it needs. The per-user price rises across those bands even though the per-user cost of pure helpdesk work does not, because what is added is dedicated people and deeper scope.

Security depth. The variable most likely to make two quotes look different for reasons unrelated to the provider's rate. In Brocent's structure, base antivirus and EDR, dark web monitoring, DMARC monitoring and web content filtering sit inside the per-user plan, while managed detection and response, SOC service and fractional CISO are custom-quoted, and vulnerability scanning, patch management, security awareness training and a security starter bundle are add-ons. Six of those add-on rates are published as a single figure rather than per-market — a gap in the underlying rate data rather than a verified claim the rate is identical in Hong Kong, Singapore and Shanghai. Treat single-figure add-on rates as indicative and confirm them for the specific market.

Infrastructure footprint. Beyond users, the estate itself is priced. Brocent publishes network and wireless management at HK$808.07 / S$113.60 / RMB¥384.15 per month covering up to ten devices, virtual servers at HK$1,364.77 / S$191.51 / RMB¥644.83 per server per month, and cloud backup at HK$133.29 / S$18.70 / RMB¥62.95 per device per month.

This is where the most interesting cross-market pattern in the whole rate card appears. On those infrastructure add-ons the Hong Kong-to-China ratio is roughly 1.8x — consistently, across all three line items. On the per-user plans it is roughly 4x. That difference is the clearest available evidence for something usually asserted rather than shown: the cross-market price gap in managed IT is overwhelmingly a labour-cost gap, not a general "everything costs more here" effect. Where a service is mostly software and licensing the markets converge; where it is mostly engineer time they diverge. This is Brocent's own analysis of its own published figures rather than an external finding — but it is arithmetic on published numbers, not an estimate.

Contract term and volume. Managed plans carry a minimum 12-month term, and token blocks show the roughly 22% per-token volume discount described above. Both are levers a buyer can actually pull.

A Buyer's Checklist for Comparing Quotes Across These Three Markets

The practical difficulty is not obtaining quotes; it is making them comparable. The following normalisations do most of that work.

• Normalise the SLA tier before comparing anything else. Given a published 2x spread between the slowest and fastest tiers, comparing a business-hours quote against a 24×7 quote is comparing two different products.
• Ask what is inside the per-user number and what is an add-on, item by item. Use a concrete list — monitoring, help desk, firewall management, patching, EDR, backup and DR, credential management, dark web and DMARC monitoring, content filtering, vCIO, MDM, incident response — and mark each as included, add-on or absent. This exercise resolves most apparent price gaps.
• Confirm whether add-on rates are market-specific or a single global figure. A single figure may be a real global rate or a placeholder covering absent per-market data. Ask which.
• In Mainland China, confirm the invoicing entity and fapiao treatment before comparing totals. A cheaper quote that cannot issue a deductible domestic invoice is not cheaper.
• Check the FX basis of any local-currency figure. Ask what rate and what date a local-currency quote was converted at, and whether it is fixed for the term.
• Ask what the price does at renewal, and what happens if headcount crosses a band boundary. Banded pricing means growth can move a client between tiers, and a quote silent on that is incomplete.
• Treat any per-user figure quoted without a named source as directional. That applies to the vendor-blog ranges cited here as much as to anything a competing provider asserts in a sales meeting.

What This Report Does Not Claim

Being explicit about the limits is part of the point.

This is not an independent market survey. Its spine is one provider's published list pricing — Brocent's own — and one provider's rate card is not a market average, however transparent. It is offered as a checkable, market-specific data point in a subject area where almost none exist.

The external ranges cited are vendor content-marketing estimates, named as such and used only as a weak sanity check. For Mainland China, no credible public per-user benchmark was found; nothing here should be read as supplying one. Local-currency figures derive from a USD-denominated rate card converted at rates cached in August 2026, and FX moves. Enterprise-tier pricing is custom-quoted in all three markets, so the top of each range is genuinely unpublished. And six add-on rates referenced above carry a single global figure because per-market data does not currently exist behind them.

The most important context: in Brocent's own 12-market pricing study, every enterprise-tier competitor checked published no pricing at all. A benchmark article in this space works with an evidence base the industry has collectively chosen not to create. Publishing real numbers with their limitations stated is more useful than publishing confident numbers with the limitations hidden.

Frequently Asked Questions

How much do managed IT services cost per user per month in Hong Kong, China and Singapore?

On Brocent's own published rate card — one provider's list pricing, not a market average — entry-level plans run HK$855 per user per month in Hong Kong, S$126 in Singapore and RMB¥178 in Mainland China, rising to HK$1,561 / S$227 / RMB¥357 at the Growth tier, with Enterprise custom-quoted in all three markets. At the exchange rates those figures were converted at, that is roughly US$109 / US$99 / US$26 at entry level and roughly US$199 / US$178 / US$53 at Growth. Other providers will price differently; the value of these figures is that they are published, market-specific and checkable.

Why is managed IT so much cheaper in Mainland China than in Hong Kong?

Two effects compound. China's underlying support-engineer wage base is lower — roughly US$1,250–1,667 per month against roughly US$1,872–2,218 in Hong Kong on Brocent's own wage research — and the bill-rate-to-wage multiple applied on top of it is also narrower, roughly 1.6x versus roughly 2.2x, because China's SME provider market is more fragmented and price-competitive. A lower base multiplied by a smaller number produces roughly a 4x difference in the final per-user price. It is not primarily a difference in the technical work being delivered.

Is there a reliable public benchmark for managed IT pricing in Mainland China?

No. No named survey with a disclosed methodology covers per-user managed IT contract pricing in Mainland China, and even the vendor-blog layer that exists for Hong Kong and Singapore is largely absent. Any confident per-user China figure quoted without a named source should be treated as an estimate. This report deliberately does not supply one, and instead publishes one provider's actual China rate card labelled as exactly that.

How much does a faster SLA add to the price?

Brocent publishes an explicit consumption multiplier: 1 token per hour at 8×5 business hours with a 2-hour P1 response, 1.5 tokens per hour at 8×7 extended hours with a 1-hour P1 and same-day on-site, and 2 tokens per hour at 24×7×365 with a 15-minute P1 and 4-hour on-site response. The same work therefore costs twice as much at the fastest published tier as at the slowest. Brocent's own 12-market study found the only two vendors in that study publishing response-time tiers charging roughly +24–29% for a same-day tier and +86% up to 3x for the fastest — the same direction, similar order of magnitude.

Why do Hong Kong and Singapore price so similarly when their labour markets differ?

They price similarly in absolute terms — Singapore runs about 10% below Hong Kong at every published tier — but for different underlying reasons. Hong Kong reaches its price through a wider bill-rate-to-wage multiple on a moderate wage base. Singapore reaches a similar price through near-parity pricing on a much higher wage base: Brocent's own research found its published Singapore dedicated-engineer rate landed within about 1% of the local desktop support engineer wage benchmark. Similar output price, very different economics behind it.

What should be included in a managed IT plan at these prices?

On Brocent's published structure, thirteen items are included at every tier: 24/7 NOC monitoring, help desk, managed firewall, patch management, base antivirus and EDR, backup and DR including immutable backup, password and credential management, dark web monitoring, DMARC monitoring, web content filtering, a named vCIO and roadmap, customer-owned documentation and credentials, and SLA guarantees. Mobile device management is an add-on at every tier, and incident response beyond base antivirus and EDR is bundled only at Enterprise. A quote materially cheaper than these benchmarks is worth checking against that list item by item.

Does a per-user plan or pay-as-you-go work out cheaper?

It depends on which party should carry the risk of a bad month, not on which headline number is lower. A per-user plan is a fixed cost with a minimum 12-month term and continuous proactive coverage — the provider absorbs the variance. Token blocks have no long-term commitment and can be cheaper in quiet periods, but nothing proactive happens between calls. For an operation that cannot tolerate unmonitored infrastructure, the models are not substitutes at any price.

How should a multi-market company budget across all three markets?

Not by taking an average. The roughly 4x per-user spread between Hong Kong and Mainland China means a blended regional figure will be wrong in every individual market. Budget per market against that market's own rate card, normalise the SLA tier so the numbers are comparable, and confirm the invoicing entity in China separately. Note also that the cross-market spread is much narrower — roughly 1.8x rather than 4x — on infrastructure add-ons like backup and network management, so a multi-market estate does not scale in cost the way a multi-market headcount does.

Where to Take This

The honest summary is that this market publishes almost nothing, the ranges that circulate are vendor content marketing rather than research, and the one genuinely comparable dataset available is a provider's own published, market-specific rate card — read for what it is. What it shows is a roughly 4x per-user spread driven by labour economics rather than margin, narrowing to under 2x on tooling-heavy line items, and an SLA lever that can double the number regardless of which market the work happens in.

Any provider that will not answer, in specifics, what its per-user number includes, which SLA tier it assumes and what is an add-on, has not given a quote that can be compared. That standard applies to Brocent's own published figures as much as to anyone else's. Current list pricing for all three markets is on the pricing page.