Direct vendor relationships, transparent platform pricing, AI-native sourcing — without the 10–25% markup, account-manager gatekeeping, and locked-in data of a traditional MSP.
Trusted by leading companies
Talk directly to your vendors. Negotiate rates, benchmark performance, reward the best — without an MSP account manager gatekeeping every conversation.
MSPs take 10–25% on every contract, scaled by your spend. Fill is a flat platform fee — your savings stay yours, not the MSP’s.
Your workforce data lives in your platform, not in your MSP’s. Every dashboard configurable, every export one click. Your data, your control.
The leverage Fill puts in your hands the moment you stop paying a markup.
.svg){kind=icon}
"Fill is an invaluable partner in taking our external workforce abilities to the next level."
Fredrik Taube
Head of procurement
An MSP (managed service provider) is an outsourced service: a third party runs your contingent workforce programme, manages your suppliers and typically charges a percentage of the spend that flows through it. A VMS is software your own team runs. The practical difference is who holds the supplier relationships and the rate data — the MSP, or you.
The common reasons are cost and control. MSP fees scale with your spend rather than with the work involved, and because the MSP sits between you and your suppliers, rate benchmarks and supplier performance data live with them rather than with you. Companies that have built internal procurement capability often find they are paying for coordination they can now do themselves.
Genuine things, and it is worth being honest about them. An MSP absorbs day-to-day supplier chasing, handles a lot of compliance administration, and gives you a single point of contact when something goes wrong. Replacing that means either software that automates the coordination or a person who owns it internally. Organisations without either will feel the gap.
Usually yes. Your suppliers are your commercial relationships; the MSP administers them. Check your contract for notice periods and any clause covering supplier introductions, then re-paper the agreements directly. Most suppliers welcome the change, because working direct removes a layer of margin between them and the client.
It replaces the systematic parts: intake, sourcing, rate benchmarking, approvals, contracting, timesheets and invoice reconciliation. It does not replace judgement — someone still owns supplier strategy and negotiation. The question is whether that is worth an ongoing percentage of spend or a role on your own team.
The limiting factor is usually your MSP contract's notice period, not the technology. Plan the supplier re-papering and the data migration in parallel with the notice window so the two finish together. Fill customers see 98% hiring-manager adoption, which matters here: a transition only sticks if the people raising requests actually use the new system.
