The Real Cost of Pet Sitting Platform Fees: A Comparison

If you are a pet sitter listed on one of the major platforms, you already know the sting of watching your earnings get shaved on every booking. But most sitters I talk to have never actually sat down and calculated the annual cost. When they do, the reaction is always the same: shock, followed by quiet anger.

I spent years as CTO of Pawshake, and later built ModerateKit, a trust and safety platform for online marketplaces. I have seen the fee structures from the inside. I know what platforms actually spend on the services they provide to sitters, and I know the gap between that cost and what they charge. This article lays it all out with real numbers.

The Major Platforms and Their Fee Structures

Let me break down what each platform currently charges as of late 2025.

Rover (Global)

Rover is the dominant player globally and operates in the US, Canada, the UK, and — following its acquisition of Mad Paws — Australia.

• Sitter commission: 20% of every booking
• Owner service fee: 5-11% added on top of the sitter's rate (previously a flat 7%, now a variable rate that tends higher for smaller bookings)
• Cancellation policy: Rover holds funds and releases to sitters 2 days after the booking starts

For a sitter charging $50/night for a 7-night booking ($350 total), Rover takes $70. The owner pays an additional $17.50-$38.50 in service fees, meaning the total platform extraction from a single booking ranges from $87.50 to $108.50. On a $350 booking.

Mad Paws (Australia — Now Rover)

Mad Paws was Australia's largest pet sitting marketplace before Rover acquired it in November 2025.

• Historical sitter commission: 17.6% (inclusive of GST processing)
• Post-acquisition: Transitioning to Rover's 20% sitter commission + owner service fees
• Impact: Approximately 70,000 sitters and 300,000 pet parents affected

If you are currently on Mad Paws, expect your effective commission rate to increase from 17.6% to 20% as the platforms merge, with your clients also now paying the additional owner service fee they were not previously paying.

Pawshake (Europe, Canada, Australia)

Pawshake operates across Europe, Canada, and Australia, with strongest presence in Belgium, the Netherlands, and the UK.

• Sitter commission: Approximately 15% (varies slightly by market)
• Owner service fee: Included in the sitter's commission (not charged separately)
• Payment timing: Funds released 48-72 hours after booking start

Pawshake's rate is lower than Rover's, but 15% of a full-time sitter's income is still substantial. And having been on the inside, I can tell you the platform's actual costs to service a booking — payment processing, hosting, support — are a fraction of that 15%.

Floofers (Australia)

Floofers is a smaller Australian platform that has positioned itself as a lower-cost alternative.

• Sitter commission: 10%
• Owner service fee: Minimal or none
• Market: Primarily Australia, much smaller user base

10% is better than 20%, but the model is the same. The more you earn, the more you pay. And smaller platforms face constant pressure to raise rates as they try to become profitable.

The Pet Sitter (Australia, Belgium — Launching)

Full disclosure: this is our platform. But I include it because the model is fundamentally different.

• Sitter commission: 0%
• Subscription fee: Flat monthly or annual fee (from $9.99/month on the annual plan)
• Owner fees: Free for pet owners
• Payment processing: Standard processing fees only (approximately 2.9% + $0.30 per transaction)

The Annual Cost Comparison

Here is where the numbers get stark. I have calculated the annual cost to sitters at three income levels: $2,000/month (part-time), $3,000/month (full-time), and $5,000/month (established professional).

Part-Time Sitter: $2,000/month ($24,000/year)

Even at a part-time level, the difference between Rover and The Pet Sitter is $4,560-$4,680 per year. That is a holiday. That is a car repair. That is four months of groceries.

Full-Time Sitter: $3,000/month ($36,000/year)

At full-time income, a sitter on Rover loses $7,200 per year in commission. That number should sit with you. Over five years on the platform, that is $36,000 in fees paid for the privilege of being listed in search results and having your messages routed through a branded inbox.

Professional Sitter: $5,000/month ($60,000/year)

At the professional level, the gap between Rover and The Pet Sitter is nearly $12,000 per year. That is a 20% raise, instantly, just by switching platforms.

The Hidden Costs You Do Not See

Commission percentages are only part of the story. Having worked inside a pet sitting marketplace, I can tell you about costs that are not on any pricing page.

Float Income

When a pet owner pays for a booking, the platform holds that money. On Rover, funds are released to sitters 2 days after the booking starts. On Pawshake, it was typically 48-72 hours after booking commencement.

During that holding period, the platform earns interest on the float — the aggregate of all held funds across all active bookings. For a platform processing millions in monthly bookings, the float can generate significant passive income. At Pawshake, we were holding tens of thousands of euros on any given day. Across the industry, platforms with larger booking volumes hold millions.

This is not illegal, and it is standard practice in payment processing. But it is revenue the platform earns from your money, on top of the commission they already took from your booking.

Pricing Pressure

Commission-based platforms create invisible pricing pressure on sitters. When a pet owner sees your rate of $50/night and then gets charged an additional $4-6 in service fees at checkout, their perception of value shifts. Some owners filter by price, meaning sitters feel pressure to lower their rates to stay competitive — but every dollar they lower their rate, the platform still takes its 20%.

I saw this at Pawshake. Sitters in competitive markets would undercut each other on price, but the platform's commission was calculated on the already-depressed rates. The race to the bottom benefited the platform (more bookings, same percentage) but compressed sitter margins.

Anti-Circumvention Systems

This is the part that always bothered me most.

Pet sitting platforms invest significant engineering resources in preventing sitters and owners from connecting outside the platform. At Pawshake, we built systems to detect phone numbers, email addresses, and social media handles in messages. We flagged accounts that showed patterns suggesting off-platform bookings.

From the platform's perspective, this is rational — you are protecting your revenue. But from the sitter's perspective, you are being surveilled and restricted in how you communicate with people who are coming to your home to leave their pets. The platform is inserting itself as a permanent intermediary in what is fundamentally a personal, trust-based relationship.

Every dollar spent on anti-circumvention is a dollar that could have been spent on features that actually help sitters — better calendar tools, tax reporting, insurance options, marketing support.

Why Subscription Models Are the Future

The problems with commission-based pet sitting marketplaces are structural, not incremental. You cannot fix them by reducing the commission from 20% to 18%. The fundamental issue is that percentage-based fees create a misalignment between the platform's interests and the sitter's interests.

Under a commission model:

• The platform earns more when prices are higher (bigger commission per booking)
• The platform earns more from high-volume sitters (more transactions to tax)
• The platform has no incentive to help sitters build independent client relationships
• The platform's revenue depends on remaining the intermediary forever

Under a subscription model:

• The platform earns the same regardless of how much the sitter earns
• The platform succeeds when sitters stay on the platform long-term (retention, not extraction)
• The platform has every incentive to help sitters succeed, because happy sitters renew
• The sitter's success and the platform's success are aligned

This is not a theoretical argument. SaaS subscription models have replaced commission models across dozens of industries — from real estate (Redfin to flat-fee brokers) to freelancing (percentage-based platforms to subscription tools). The pet sitting industry is overdue for the same transition.

What This Means For You

If you are a pet sitter currently on Rover, Mad Paws, Pawshake, or any other commission-based platform, I would encourage you to do one thing: open a spreadsheet and calculate your annual commission payments. Look at the number. Ask yourself what you got for it.

Then consider what you could do with that money if you kept it.

The Pet Sitter is now accepting sitter registrations in Melbourne, Sydney, Antwerp, and Brussels. If you are in one of those cities, you can find sitters near you or sign up as a sitter today.

The maths do not lie. Commission-based platforms were built to serve investors. Subscription platforms are built to serve sitters. It is time to choose which side you are on.