HEAD-TO-HEAD
Two-column comparison of Citeo PRO and Twiice published packaging EPR rates in France, each figure linked to its source.
Citeo PRO and Twiice both run packaging EPR compliance in France. Of 3 directly comparable material categories, Citeo PRO is lower in 0 and Twiice in 1. The biggest single gap is Aluminium (professional, commercial and industrial packaging), where Twiice is 33% cheaper than Citeo PRO (0.0054 vs 0.008 EUR/kg). Gramta keeps both tariffs sourced and dated; the dataset was updated 22 Aug 2026.
Dataset updated 22 Aug 2026
Maintained 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 | Citeo PROSource | TwiiceSource | Show the underlying tariff lines |
|---|---|---|---|
| Paper and cardboard | No comparable published rate | 0.035 EUR/kg | |
| PlasticSame rate | 0.22 EUR/kg | 0.22 EUR/kg | |
| Glass | No comparable published rate | 0.0054 EUR/kg | |
| Aluminium | 0.008 EUR/kg | 0.0054 EUR/kglowest | |
| Steel and other metals | 0.008 – 0.083 EUR/kg2 tariff lines | 0.024 EUR/kg | |
Tariff lines: Steel and other metals, Professional, commercial and industrial packaging |
|
| |
| WoodSame rate | 0.009 EUR/kg | 0.009 EUR/kg |
“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.
| PRO or scheme | Minimum and base fees |
|---|---|
| Citeo PRO | ≈ €125/yr |
No published minimum or base fee in the current dataset for: Twiice.
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 Twiice is the cheaper choice: it charges less in 1 of 3 directly comparable categories and more in none (as of 22 Aug 2026). The biggest gap is Aluminium (professional, commercial and industrial packaging), where Twiice is 33% cheaper (0.0054 vs Citeo PRO's 0.008 EUR/kg). 2 categories are identical. 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 checked date (dataset updated 22 Aug 2026). 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.