Flat fee vs commission split: we ran the numbers.

Every mortgage broker knows the headline split their aggregator charges. 80/20. 85/15. Maybe 90/10 if you've negotiated hard. But very few brokers have sat down and converted that percentage into an actual dollar figure — and then compared it against a flat monthly fee.

We did. And the results are uncomfortable for anyone defending the legacy model.

The setup: three real-world broker profiles

To make this comparison meaningful, we modelled three broker profiles that represent the range of operators we speak with every week. Each uses industry-average upfront and trail commission rates in Australia.

What the legacy model actually costs

Most aggregators charge between 10% and 20% of both upfront and trail commissions. Some dress it up as a ‘service fee’ or ‘technology levy,’ but the economics are the same: a percentage of your revenue, every month, forever. The more successful you become, the more you pay.

Read that last row again. A broker settling $5M per month pays their aggregator between $67,500 and $90,000 per year in commission splits. Under ExBanqi's flat-fee model, the same broker pays $11,880 per year ($990/month + GST). That's a difference of up to $78,120 — every single year.

The compounding problem with percentage splits

Here's what makes the legacy model particularly punishing: trail commissions compound. As your loan book grows, your trail income grows — and so does the aggregator's cut. You're essentially paying a rising tax on your own success. A broker who builds a $50M trail book over five years is paying their aggregator $7,500–$10,000 per year in trail splits alone, on top of upfront splits.

The irony of the commission-split model is that it punishes the behaviour aggregators claim to encourage — growth.— Bill Amarantos, Founder of ExBanqi

What about the ‘value’ argument?

The most common defence of commission splits is that they ‘include everything’ — CRM, compliance, lender access, support. But this argument falls apart under scrutiny. ExBanqi's $990/month + GST includes the same SFG Connect CRM, the same 70+ lender panel, the same compliance framework, the same dedicated support. The infrastructure is identical. The only difference is how you pay for it.

Paying a percentage made sense when aggregators were providing scarce access to lenders and technology was expensive. Neither of those conditions exists in 2026.

The five-year view

For the established broker settling $3M per month, the five-year cost comparison is stark:

The split model costs increase each year as the trail book grows. The flat fee stays the same. Over five years, the established broker saves between $173,100 and $250,600. That's a house deposit. A business acquisition. A retirement fund.

These are illustrative numbers. Your actual savings depend on your settlement volume, commission rates and trail book size.

Who should stay on a commission split?

We'll be honest: the flat-fee model isn't optimal for every broker. If you're brand new to the industry, settling under $500K per month, and need intensive hand-holding through your first year, a commission split might make sense because your absolute dollar cost is low. But the moment your settlements consistently exceed $1M per month, the maths shifts decisively in favour of a flat fee.

The bottom line

Commission splits are a legacy pricing model that transfers wealth from brokers to aggregators in proportion to the broker's success. A flat fee aligns incentives: you grow, you keep the upside. The aggregator earns a fair, predictable fee for providing infrastructure. Nobody is penalised for being good at their job.