HEAD-TO-HEAD
Two-column comparison of ETO and Pakendiringlus published packaging EPR rates in Estonia, each figure linked to its source.
ETO and Pakendiringlus both run packaging EPR compliance in Estonia. Of 4 directly comparable material categories, ETO is lower in 4 and Pakendiringlus in 0. The biggest single gap is Wood (all packaging in the published scope), where ETO is 56% cheaper than Pakendiringlus (0.011 vs 0.025 EUR/kg). Gramta keeps both tariffs sourced and dated, reviewed 11 Aug 2026.
Dataset reviewed 11 Aug 2026
Reviewed by Daniel VaknineEach 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.
| Material or tariff line | ETOSource | PakendiringlusSource | Show the underlying tariff lines |
|---|---|---|---|
| Paper and cardboardAll packaging in the published scope | 0.072 – 0.098 EUR/kg4 tariff lines | 0.072 – 0.15 EUR/kg4 tariff lines | |
Tariff lines: Paper and cardboard, All packaging in the published scope |
|
| |
| PlasticAll packaging in the published scope | 0.063 – 0.35 EUR/kg4 tariff lines | 0.065 – 0.32 EUR/kg3 tariff lines | |
Tariff lines: Plastic, All packaging in the published scope |
|
| |
| GlassAll packaging in the published scope | 0.084 EUR/kglowest | 0.086 EUR/kg | |
| AluminiumAll packaging in the published scope | 0.065 – 0.15 EUR/kglowest2 tariff lines | 0.085 – 0.18 EUR/kg2 tariff lines | |
Tariff lines: Aluminium, All packaging in the published scope |
|
| |
| Steel and other metalsAll packaging in the published scope | 0.081 – 0.18 EUR/kglowest2 tariff lines | 0.085 – 0.18 EUR/kg2 tariff lines | |
Tariff lines: Steel and other metals, All packaging in the published scope |
|
| |
| WoodAll packaging in the published scope | 0.011 EUR/kglowest | 0.022 – 0.025 EUR/kg2 tariff lines | |
Tariff lines: Wood, All packaging in the published scope |
|
|
“Lowest” marks the scheme that is cheaper on every published tier of that category, at the precision shown. Ties and mixed results get no marker.
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, 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.
None of the compared Estonia schemes publishes a minimum or base fee in the current dataset – the per-kilogram rates above are the whole published price.
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.
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.
Get started with GramtaYes – on current published rates ETO is the cheaper choice: it charges less in 4 of 4 directly comparable categories and more in none (as of 11 Aug 2026). The biggest gap is Wood (all packaging in the published scope), where ETO is 56% cheaper (0.011 vs Pakendiringlus's 0.025 EUR/kg). Minimum fees and packaging scopes still differ, so confirm both against the linked tariffs before deciding.
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.
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.