How to compare value-recovery offers

Some of what you're paying to dispose of is worth money. Working out how much, and whether an offer is fair, is harder than it should be, because the four common pricing bases aren't directly comparable, and nothing obliges a provider to quote in the same shape as the last one.

What actually differs between two value-recovery offersSix variables move the number: whether the asset or the weight is priced, who tests and against what scale, when the inventory is taken, whether the data step is included, who carries a failed device, and whether the report proves anything per device or only per batch.Two quotes for the same pallet can differ by more than price. These are the variables that move the number.What is being pricedthe asset, or the weightWho tests, and against whata published grading scale, or nobody'sWhen the inventory is takenat your dock, or at theirsWhat the data step costsincluded, or a line itemWho carries a failed devicethem, or youWhat the report provesper device, or per batchA weight-only quote is pricing the material. Compare it against an asset quote and you are comparing two different things.
Two offers for the same pallet, priced on different assumptions.

Here's how to make offers comparable.


First, understand what you're being quoted

Offers in this market usually take one of four shapes, and they're not interchangeable.

Per pound. A rate by weight, sometimes with a floor for complete units. Simple, and it prices a working laptop the same as a broken one of similar mass. Fine for genuine scrap. Poor for a recent fleet.

Per unit. A flat figure by device type, sometimes by model. Better, though it flattens condition.

Revenue share. You get an agreed proportion of what each device sells for. Only meaningful if you can see what each device sold for.

Offset. The recovered value reduces the service fee rather than arriving as income. Administratively simpler for a lot of public buyers, and check it against your own finance rules before you agree.

A weight-only quote prices the material, not the asset. That alone doesn't mean the provider isn't doing proper disposition. The seven questions below are what tells you.


Then ask these seven questions

1. What's the unit of measurement, and can I see it? A single recovery figure with nothing behind it is a number you have to take on trust. Ask whether you'll receive a per-unit breakdown showing what each device made and when it sold.

2. Is condition graded before pricing, and against what scale? Grading is what makes a price defensible. Without it you can't tell why two identical models made different amounts, and you can't check anything.

Six tablets standing in a row on a test bench, each screen lit a flat solid colour, cabled to a hub.
Functional testing is what separates a real offer from an optimistic one.

3. When does data treatment happen relative to sale? It should happen first, be verified, and be recorded per device. If a provider can't tell you the order, ask again.

4. Who pays the costs, and which ones? Collection, packing, transport, non-revenue material, recycling fees for items with no value. These get netted off in different places by different providers, and a headline rate can mean very little once they're applied.

5. What happens to devices worth nothing? Assume there will be some. If they're handled free, say so in the contract. If there's a charge, know it now.

6. When do I get paid, and against what document? Thirty days after sale is different from thirty days after collection. On a large fleet that gap matters.

7. Who's the buyer, and what do they get? Ask whether your identifying marks are removed, and whether that removal is recorded. Asset tags on resold equipment are a small problem that becomes a large one at exactly the wrong moment.


What actually holds value

Recent-generation laptops are usually the highest-value of the three device types we handle, and lose it continuously rather than in steps. A fleet retired promptly is worth more than the same fleet after a long spell in a closet being kept just in case.

Which device classes hold resale valueLaptops hold value best when recent, working and unlocked. Tablets hold value where the model is still supported. Phone value falls fastest.LaptopsRecent, working, unlockedholds value bestTabletsWhere the model is still supportedmodel-dependentPhonesValue falls fastest with age and conditionsteepest decayCondition and lock status move these more than age does.
Relative, not absolute. Anyone quoting absolutes has not seen your fleet.

Phones and tablets hold value well when the screen is intact and the device isn't carrier-locked or activation-locked. Carrier locks and activation locks are a common reason a phone that should have been worth something isn't. They're cheaper to clear before collection than to chase afterwards, because afterwards it needs your administrator's time on a device that has already left the building.

Older devices, damaged screens, missing components are a recycling story rather than a resale story. An offer that promises resale value across a whole mixed-age fleet deserves a question: which units?


Where the money usually goes

Usually, delay.

A closet full of retired laptops isn't storage. It's a depreciating asset and an open data liability, and it's costing you floor space to hold both.

Delay costs money too, and it's the cost that rarely appears on a comparison sheet. Run that number alongside the rate comparison before you spend weeks on the second one.

A tablet on a dark bench with a spiderweb crack across its switched-off screen, lit from the side.
One cracked panel can move a device from the resale column to the recycling column.

Working comparison record

One row per provider. Fill it in from their written offer, not from a conversation.

Provider A Provider B Provider C
Pricing basis (weight / unit / share / offset)
Per-unit reporting provided?
Condition grading scale
Data treatment before sale?
Costs netted off
Zero-value devices
Payment timing and trigger
Identifying marks removed and recorded?
Documentation supplied
Evidence reviewed and by whom