Compare Austria packaging EPR fees: 5 PROs side by side.
Published per-kilogram rates from every comparable Austria scheme in one view – same material, same published scope, each figure linked to its source.
In Austria, the PRO you register with changes the bill. For textiles (household packaging), Bonus charges 0.15 EUR per kilogram while Reclay AT charges 0.50 EUR – 245% more for the same category. Gramta compares 16 like-for-like material rates across 5 schemes, reviewed 11 Aug 2026.
The largest like-for-like gaps in the current dataset – same material family, same published scope, and one scheme cheaper on every published tier.
+245%Textiles
Household
Lowest
Bonus · 0.15 EUR/kg
Highest
Reclay AT · 0.50 EUR/kg
+233%Ceramics
Household
Lowest
Bonus · 0.12 EUR/kg
Highest
Reclay AT · 0.40 EUR/kg
+79%Plastic
Commercial
Lowest
Interzero AT · 0.099 EUR/kg
Highest
Bonus · 0.18 EUR/kg
+63%Steel and other metals
Household
Lowest
Bonus · 0.44 EUR/kg
Highest
ERP AT · 0.72 EUR/kg
+56%Aluminium
Household
Lowest
Bonus · 0.47 EUR/kg
Highest
ERP AT · 0.74 EUR/kg
+17%Wood
Commercial
Lowest
Interzero AT · 0.018 EUR/kg
Highest
Bonus · 0.021 EUR/kg
Rates side by side, by material
Each row is one material family in one published scope – scopes are never mixed. Where a scheme prices several tiers of the same family (colour, recyclability, format), the cell shows its range; expand the row to see every underlying sourced line. An empty cell means that scheme publishes no comparable rate there.
Add the materials you place on the market and a yearly weight for each. Gramta multiplies every scheme's current published rate, so you see the yearly difference in real money – not per-kilogram abstractions.
Add a material and a yearly weight to see each scheme's total.
Minimum and base fees
Minimum, membership and base fees apply on top of (or instead of) per-kilogram rates, and they are comparable across every scheme regardless of tariff structure. Terms differ – some are annual, some one-off – so check each source.
PRO or scheme
Minimum and base fees
ARA
90 EUR using the source-defined unit
Interzero AT
150 EUR per year
No published minimum or base fee in the current dataset for: Bonus, ERP AT, Reclay AT, AGR.
Not in this table – and why
These Austria schemes are in the dataset but can't sit in a per-kilogram comparison without misleading you. Every one of their published lines is on the Austria fee page with its source.
AGR
Official name: Austria Glas Recycling GmbH (AGR)
Publishes no current public rates – pricing is by quote or contract.
The comparison above is one country, one year, per-kilogram rates only. Filing for real means classifying every product's packaging, applying minimums and modulation, and repeating it for every country you sell into – every year.
You owe fees in every EU country you ship to, not just one.
Every product's packaging has to be weighed and sorted by material.
There are extra fixed fees, minimums, and higher rates for hard-to-recycle packaging.
And it has to be filed accurately, on time, every single year.
You don't have to do this by hand
Send us your sales and your packaging details once. Gramta works out the fees for every country you sell in and keeps each report up to date and ready to file.
No scheme is cheapest for every material, so it depends on your mix. Across 16 directly comparable categories, the lowest rate moves between schemes: Bonus lowest in 4, Interzero AT lowest in 3. Check the rows above against your own packaging, then the minimum fees – a low per-kilogram rate can be outweighed by a higher minimum.
Is Bonus cheaper than Reclay AT in Austria?
It depends on the material. Bonus charges less for 5 of 15 directly comparable categories – for Textiles (household packaging) it is 71% cheaper (0.15 vs Reclay AT's 0.50 EUR/kg). Reclay AT charges less for 6, led by Ceramics (commercial packaging) where it is 17% cheaper (0.10 vs Bonus's 0.12 EUR/kg). 4 categories are identical. In 1 categories the schemes' tiered ranges overlap, so neither side can honestly be called lower there. Weigh your own material mix in the table – every figure links to its source.
Is Bonus cheaper than ERP AT in Austria?
It depends on the material. Bonus charges less for 7 of 15 directly comparable categories – for Textiles (household packaging) it is 70% cheaper (0.15 vs ERP AT's 0.48 EUR/kg). ERP AT charges less for 5, led by Ceramics (commercial packaging) where it is 17% cheaper (0.10 vs Bonus's 0.12 EUR/kg). 3 categories are identical. In 1 categories the schemes' tiered ranges overlap, so neither side can honestly be called lower there. Weigh your own material mix in the table – every figure links to its source.
Is ARA cheaper than Reclay AT in Austria?
It depends on the material. ARA charges less for 5 of 16 directly comparable categories – for Ceramics (household packaging) it is 65% cheaper (0.14 vs Reclay AT's 0.40 EUR/kg). Reclay AT charges less for 9, led by Plastic (household packaging) where it is 11% cheaper (0.93 vs ARA's 1.04 EUR/kg). 2 categories are identical. Weigh your own material mix in the table – every figure links to its source.
Is ARA cheaper than ERP AT in Austria?
It depends on the material. ARA charges less for 5 of 16 directly comparable categories – for Ceramics (household packaging) it is 64% cheaper (0.14 vs ERP AT's 0.39 EUR/kg). ERP AT charges less for 3, led by Paper and cardboard (household packaging) where it is 12% cheaper (0.18 vs ARA's 0.21 EUR/kg). 8 categories are identical. Weigh your own material mix in the table – every figure links to its source.
Can I just register with the cheapest PRO in Austria?
Usually you can choose, but not on the per-kilogram rate alone. Schemes differ in packaging scopes, minimum and membership fees, eco-modulation tiers and contract terms, and some only accept certain packaging streams. Use the comparison to shortlist, then confirm scope and total cost against the scheme's own tariff – every rate here links to it.
Where do these comparison figures come from?
Every rate is a published tariff line from the scheme itself, held in Gramta's sourced fee dataset with its effective period and review date (11 Aug 2026 for this page). Nothing is averaged or estimated: identical material families in identical published scopes are placed side by side, and anything not like-for-like is excluded and explained above.