Fill vs eWork

A modern alternative to eWork.

Direct supplier relationships, no margin on consultant hours, your own data and AI agents doing the admin, in a platform built for how procurement teams actually work today.

Fill vs eWork at a glance

Criterion
Fill
eWork
Built for
Consultant and SOW spend specifically — one record per engagement from brief to invoice.
Consultant brokering and managed services (MSP): eWork matches consultants from a network of over 240,000 to client requests.
AI approach
AI-native: agents run sourcing, rate benchmarking and reconciliation — you approve every decision.
AI inside its own broker platform: request-to-ad, AI matching and feedback automation went into daily use in 2025.
Proof style
Outcome metrics: €2M average year-one savings, 14% lower rate cards, 98% hiring-manager adoption.
Scale: over 500 clients and an average of 10,661 consultants on assignment in 2025.
Commercial model
A platform fee. No margin on the consultant hours you buy.
A margin on the consultant sales it brokers: gross margin was 4.1% of net sales in 2025.
Supplier relationships
Direct: you contract, negotiate and benchmark with each consultancy yourself.
Through eWork, which is the contracting party between you and the supplier.
EU fit
EU-native: European data residency posture, no training on your data, built for Nordic and European enterprises.
Headquartered in Stockholm and active in seven European countries in 2025.
Buying motion
See your own use case in a demo and start without an enterprise procurement cycle.
A broker or MSP agreement with eWork; pricing is not published.
▣Direct supplier relationships
⊞No margin on consultant hours
≡Your data, your platform
☰AI in every workflow

Where Fill differs from eWork.

  • 01Direct supplier relationships. You contract each consultancy yourself.
  • 02No margin on hours. A platform fee, not a share of your spend.
  • 03Your data, your platform. Rates and supplier scores stay with you.
  • 04AI native to every workflow — sourcing, scoring, reconciling.

Where Fill outpaces a broker.

Setup · Day 28
Vendors imported
HRIS connected
Procurement live
Hiring managers onboarded

Days to value, not months

Fill goes live in weeks, end-to-end, and your existing consultancies come with you. You keep working with them directly, with no broker in between.

Active consultants — All vendors
Janica EllisenKnowit
Sophie HabibSigma
Clara PedersenHiQ

One register across every supplier

Every consultant from every consultancy in one record, whether they came through a broker, a framework agreement or a direct contract. And hiring managers use it: 98% adoption.

EU residency & BankID
EU-hosted by default
BankID identity
GDPR & EU AI Act aligned
Nordic labour law ready

European-first by design

Built for European procurement reality. BankID identity, EU residency, GDPR and Nordic labour law — all native, not retrofitted.

What you’ll have your first week with Fill.

The deliverables Fill puts in your hands inside a month, owned by you, not by an intermediary.

Built for adoption, not implementation.

Your questions answered

"eWork is a Nordic consultant broker with a large network that acts as the contracting party between clients and consultancies. Fill is the AI procurement system for your consultant workforce: software your own team runs, with direct supplier relationships, AI agents doing the program work under your supervision, and a footprint designed for European enterprises."

Talk to Fredrik

Moving off a consultant broker,
questions answered.

What is the difference between a consultant broker and a VMS?

A broker is a service: it sources consultants for you, sits as the contracting party between you and the supplier, and earns a margin on the hours that flow through it. A VMS is software your own team runs. The practical difference is who holds the supplier relationships and the rate data: the broker, or you.

Why do companies move away from a broker model?

Cost and control. A margin on every hour scales with your spend rather than with the work involved, and the rate history and supplier performance data build up with the broker instead of with you. Companies that have built their own procurement capability often find they are paying for coordination they can now do themselves.

What do you lose by leaving a broker?

Genuine things, and it is worth being honest about them. A broker brings a large consultant network, handles contracting and supplier administration, and gives you one counterparty when something goes wrong. Replacing that means software that automates the coordination and suppliers you contract directly. Organisations without either will feel the gap.

Can you keep your consultants when you move off a broker?

Usually, but read your contracts first. Check notice periods and any clause covering consultants or suppliers introduced through the broker, then re-paper the agreements directly with each consultancy. Plan the switch around assignment end dates so no running engagement is disrupted.

What happens to your historical consultant data when you switch?

Insist on a full export before you sign anything, not at the point of leaving. Active engagements, supplier records, rate history and closed assignments should all be extractable in an open format. Rate history in particular is the asset that makes future benchmarking possible — losing it resets your negotiating position to zero.

What makes Fill different?

Fill is an AI-native VMS built around agents that draft intake requests, run supplier RFPs, benchmark rates against your own history and reconcile invoices against timesheets — proposing each step for a human to approve rather than executing on its own. It is European by default, and it is software rather than a staffing agency, so it takes no recruiter commission.

Take procurement off the spreadsheets.

See the product