PRO PRICE COMPARISON
Published per-kilogram rates from every comparable Romania scheme in one view – same material, same published scope, each figure linked to its source.
In Romania, the 12 comparable schemes publish similar per-kilogram rates – the largest like-for-like gap in the current dataset is +28%. Gramta compares 12 material rates side by side, reviewed 11 Aug 2026, so you can verify that for your own mix.
The largest like-for-like gaps in the current dataset – same material family, same published scope, and one scheme cheaper on every published tier.
With 12 schemes, a side-by-side grid stops being readable, so each material family is ranked from the lowest to the highest published rate in the same scope. Ranges mean the scheme prices several tiers of that family; expand to see the underlying sourced lines.
“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.
All Romania rates and calculatorAll EU PRO comparisons and how to choose
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 Romania schemes publishes a minimum or base fee in the current dataset – the per-kilogram rates above are the whole published price.
These Romania 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 Romania fee page with its source.
Official name: Ecologic 3R Ambalaje S.A.
Publishes no current public rates – pricing is by quote or contract.
Official name: Financiar Recycling S.A.
Publishes too few material rates that overlap with the other schemes for a fair side-by-side.
Official name: Romanian Environmental Fund shortfall contribution
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.
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 GramtaNo scheme is cheapest for every material, so it depends on your mix. Across 12 directly comparable categories, Enviro Pack Consult charges the lowest rate most often (4 of 12 categories). Check the rows above against your own packaging, then the minimum fees – a low per-kilogram rate can be outweighed by a higher minimum.
Yes – on current published rates Eco X is the cheaper choice: it charges less in 10 of 12 directly comparable categories and more in none (as of 11 Aug 2026). The biggest gap is Wood (household packaging), where Eco X is 41% cheaper (0.32 vs Greenpoint RO's 0.54 RON/kg). 2 categories are identical. Minimum fees and packaging scopes still differ, so confirm both against the linked tariffs before deciding.
Yes – on current published rates Enviro Pack Consult is the cheaper choice: it charges less in 12 of 12 directly comparable categories and more in none (as of 11 Aug 2026). The biggest gap is Wood (household packaging), where Enviro Pack Consult is 41% cheaper (0.32 vs Greenpoint RO's 0.54 RON/kg). Minimum fees and packaging scopes still differ, so confirm both against the linked tariffs before deciding.
It depends on the material. Eco Synergy charges less for 5 of 12 directly comparable categories – for Steel and other metals (non-household packaging) it is 23% cheaper (0.37 vs Marathon EPR Group's 0.48 RON/kg). Marathon EPR Group charges less for 4, led by Paper and cardboard (non-household packaging) where it is 5% cheaper (0.36 vs Eco Synergy's 0.38 RON/kg). 3 categories are identical. Weigh your own material mix in the table – every figure links to its source.
Yes – on current published rates Enviro Pack Consult is the cheaper choice: it charges less in 10 of 12 directly comparable categories and more in none (as of 11 Aug 2026). The biggest gap is Steel and other metals (non-household packaging), where Enviro Pack Consult is 23% cheaper (0.37 vs Marathon EPR Group's 0.48 RON/kg). 2 categories are identical. Minimum fees and packaging scopes still differ, so confirm both against the linked tariffs before deciding.
It depends on the material. Ecorep Group charges less for 7 of 12 directly comparable categories – for Steel and other metals (non-household packaging) it is 13% cheaper (0.40 vs Partslife Romania's 0.46 RON/kg). Partslife Romania charges less for 4, led by Aluminium (non-household packaging) where it is 22% cheaper (0.65 vs Ecorep Group's 0.84 RON/kg). 1 categories are identical. Weigh your own material mix in the table – every figure links to its source.
It depends on the material. Eco X charges less for 10 of 12 directly comparable categories – for Wood (household packaging) it is 21% cheaper (0.32 vs Fepra's 0.40 RON/kg). Fepra charges less for 2, led by Steel and other metals (non-household packaging) where it is 6% cheaper (0.42 vs Eco X's 0.45 RON/kg). Weigh your own material mix in the table – every figure links to its source.
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.