What an OTA booking really costs you

Most channel comparisons stop at the commission rate. That understates the gap, because commission is only the visible part — and it overstates the case for going direct, because a direct booking is never free either.

This works out cost per retained room-night on both sides: what you actually keep after fees, currency, cash timing and cancellations. Everything runs in your browser; nothing is sent anywhere.

OTA booking

Use your own contracted terms, not published rates.

Average room rate per nightYour typical rate on this channel, in any single currency.

Commission rate (%)Your contracted rate, including any accelerator or preferred-partner uplift.

Payment fee (%)Virtual card / cross-border.

FX spread (%)Per conversion hop.

Cancellation rate (%)Of bookings made.

Settlement delay (days)Checkout to cash.

Direct booking

Be honest here — this is where the comparison usually breaks.

Average room rate per nightOften equal to OTA rate under parity.

Marketing cost per bookingTotal channel spend divided by bookings it produced. Include paid search and social.

Payment fee (%)Your merchant rate.

Booking engine fee (%)Or per-transaction, as %.

Cancellation rate (%)Usually lower than OTA.

Staff cost per bookingReservations time.

Cost of capital (% per year)Used to price the settlement delay on the OTA side. Your borrowing rate, or 0 to ignore.

Net retained per room-night

Via OTA

—

Direct

—

Where the money goes

Per retained room-night	OTA	Direct

How cancellations are handled: costs incurred whether or not the guest arrives — marketing spend, reservations time — are charged across retained room-nights, because you paid them on the bookings that cancelled too. Commission and payment fees are charged only on stays that complete. This is why a channel with a high cancellation rate costs more than its headline rate implies.

On the settlement delay: priced as your cost of capital over the days between checkout and cash. Set the rate to 0 to leave it out.

This is one input, not a strategy. A channel that costs more can still be worth keeping — for reach into markets you cannot address directly, for the billboard effect on your direct bookings, or for filling distressed inventory. The question is the right mix, and whether you are paying for reach in markets where you are already known.
Read the full guide on distribution economics All guides