Why we will never charge a percentage of your ad spend.

Pacvue: $500 a month minimum, or three percent of your monthly Amazon ad spend — whichever is higher.

Perpetua: $695 a month for the entry tier; the higher tiers carry a percentage component that the public pricing page does not fully disclose.

Teikametrics: $179 a month, plus three percent of any monthly spend over ten thousand dollars.

Quartile: starts at $895 a month for accounts spending fifty thousand or more; the enterprise tier is undisclosed.

Agencies: typically 10 to 20 percent of managed spend, structured as a monthly retainer.

What every line in that list has in common is that the vendor is paid more when the seller spends more. Not when the seller profits more. When the seller spends more. The two are not the same. They are often opposite.

This is the fourth Mirox pillar — aligned pricing — and the easiest one to state in a single sentence. We charge a flat monthly fee. The fee does not change when your ad spend changes. The fee does not change when our recommendations make you more profitable. The fee is the fee.

The conflict-of-interest tax

Every percentage-of-spend pricing model embeds the same incentive. The vendor's revenue is a function of the seller's gross ad expenditure. The vendor's optimal behaviour, holding the seller's outcome constant, is to nudge spend upward — wider keyword matches, higher bid ceilings, additional placement modifiers, additional campaign types.

Nobody in the category writes the incentive down. The incentive is structural. It does not require a single bad actor at the vendor to manifest; it only requires a vendor that fails to actively resist it. Across thousands of pricing decisions over thousands of accounts, the resistance is rarely consistent.

The result is a quiet tax on seller profit that the category does not name. Mirox is paid less when you spend less. Pacvue is paid more.

This is not a moral claim about Pacvue. It is a structural claim about percentage-of-spend pricing. The category-leading agencies operate the same way. The category-leading "outcome-based" tools operate the same way. The seller pays the conflict whether or not anyone at the vendor consciously exploits it.

Three percent is not small

A €50,000-per-month Amazon advertiser pays Pacvue $1,500 a month at the three-percent rate. A €100,000-per-month advertiser pays $3,000. A €500,000-per-month advertiser pays $15,000.

The Mirox Scale tier — for sellers in the €100,000-per-month range — is €899. The savings against Pacvue's three-percent on the same account is roughly €2,100 a month, €25,000 a year, before the marketing director has compared a single feature.

The savings is larger against agencies. A 15-percent retainer on €100,000 of managed spend is €15,000 a month. Mirox Scale at €899 is six percent of that. Sellers will lose features moving from an agency to Mirox — relationship continuity, weekly check-in calls, in-house creative — but they will also lose the conflict embedded in fifteen percent of every euro of spend.

What aligned actually means

"Aligned pricing" is a phrase that gets used by every category in B2B SaaS. We use it specifically. Three tests for whether a pricing model is aligned with the customer:

1. Does the vendor's revenue rise when the customer's profit rises, and fall when the customer's profit falls? Most pricing models pass this trivially because the customer cancels if the product stops working. The stronger test is whether the daily incentive points the same way.
2. Does the vendor have a financial reason to recommend something the customer should not buy? A percentage-of-spend model has this reason every day. A flat-fee model does not.
3. Can the vendor cut the customer's spend in half and still get paid the same? This is the cleanest test. If the answer is yes, the pricing is genuinely flat. If the answer is no — even partially — the pricing is partially percentage-of-spend regardless of how it is marketed.

Mirox passes all three. The Growth tier is €399 a month whether your ad spend is €20,000 or €100,000. If Mirox cuts your spend in half by trimming waste, the price stays €399. The vendor incentive points the same direction as the seller incentive: spend less, profit more.

The agency angle

A meaningful share of Amazon sellers in the €1M–€10M revenue range run their PPC through an agency. The category math:

• Agency retainer at 15 percent of €50,000 monthly spend: €7,500 per month, €90,000 per year.
• The same account on Mirox Growth: €399 per month, €4,788 per year.

The agency does things Mirox does not — strategy calls, creative work, brand-store optimisation, sometimes inventory consulting. Some of that work is genuinely valuable. Some of it is the agency justifying the retainer.

Where Mirox fits in the agency-replacement conversation:

• If your agency's primary value is PPC bid management, Mirox does that better and at four percent of the cost. Cancel the agency. Keep the savings.
• If your agency's primary value is strategy and creative, Mirox is a tool you should run alongside the agency. Show the traces to your agency. Use the savings to demand more strategic work from the same retainer.
• If your agency uses Pacvue or Perpetua under the hood and bills the percentage on top, the math is even more uncomfortable. You are paying the conflict twice.

None of this is anti-agency. The best agencies are good at things software cannot do. They are also rare and they know it. The median agency, surveyed across the EU, is selling PPC bid management with a layer of relationship-management on top. That layer does not justify the percentage.

Where the line might move (eventually)

We have been asked, more than once, whether we would ever offer an outcome-based pricing component — a percentage of savings rather than spend, paid by sellers who specifically want vendor incentive tied to their result.

The answer right now is no. Three reasons:

1. Savings disputes. Outcome-based pricing requires a baseline. Baselines are contested. The first time we and a seller disagree on what the baseline was, the relationship is damaged in a way a flat fee cannot damage.
2. Adverse selection. The sellers who would opt into outcome-based pricing are the sellers who have already done the math and concluded our recommendations will not materially help them. The sellers we genuinely help do not need the outcome guarantee.
3. Brand integrity. The pillar is aligned pricing. Adding a percentage component, even one tied to savings, complicates the story. Simplicity is a marketing asset we are unwilling to trade for incremental ARR.

If we revisit this position, it will be after fifty paid customers and with the case studies in hand to defend the baseline conversation publicly. The Mirox pricing roadmap names that trigger explicitly. Today, flat is flat.

What the seller actually pays

Public pricing, in EUR, no asterisk:

• Shadow Mode — free, forever. 5 ASINs, 1 marketplace, read-only. Public access opens Q3 2026; the founding cohort is at mirox.pt/beta until then.
• Starter — €149 per month. 10 ASINs, 1 marketplace, all sixteen agents, full decision traces.
• Growth — €399 per month. 50 ASINs, up to 3 marketplaces, priority support, monthly strategy call.
• Scale — €899 per month and up. Unlimited ASINs, all marketplaces, dedicated account manager, 1-hour response SLA.

Annual billing earns a 17-percent discount (two months free). No setup fee. No onboarding fee. No "AI premium" tier above Scale that adds a percentage. 14-day money-back guarantee on monthly plans.

The pricing page is at mirox.pt/pricing. It is the entire pricing page. There is no "contact us for pricing" tier hiding behind a demo, except on the Agency tier — which is a genuinely custom product and is the only place the public pricing page sends a buyer to a sales call.

Where this pillar leads

Aligned pricing is the fourth pillar and the one that buyers underweight until they have lived inside a misaligned vendor relationship for a year. The sellers who have already done that year are the ones who read this post all the way to the bottom.

The four pillars taken together — transparency, shadow mode, safety, intelligence, and this — are not four marketing claims. They are four structural commitments that constrain what the product can be. Read the synthesis post for the argument that ties them together.