Model one
In a traditional split model, the brokerage takes a percentage of every commission you earn. A new agent commonly starts somewhere around 70/30 or 80/20 - meaning you keep 70 or 80 percent and the brokerage keeps the rest. Your split may improve with production, and many brokerages set an annual cap: once you have paid in a certain amount, you move to a higher split (sometimes 100%) for the remainder of the year, after which it resets.
On top of the split, the model frequently includes other charges: a per-transaction fee, a franchise fee tied to a national brand, and in some offices a monthly desk fee covering space, technology, or errors-and-omissions insurance. These are normal and disclosed - the point is that the headline split is rarely the whole cost, so comparing splits alone compares an incomplete number.
The genuine advantage of this structure is that your largest cost moves with your income. In a quiet quarter, a percentage of a small number is a small number. That is real protection for an agent who is not yet producing consistently, and it is why the model has lasted.
Model two
A 100% commission brokerage inverts the arrangement. You keep the entire commission from each closing and pay the brokerage a flat transaction fee instead of a percentage. Most also charge a monthly or annual fee that covers your affiliation, compliance, and core services. Because the fee is flat, a $6,000 commission and a $15,000 commission cost you the same amount to close.
What is included varies more between fee-based brokerages than between split brokerages, so this is the question to press on. Some include the CRM, transaction management, brokerage support, training, and marketing systems in the base fee. Others run closer to a la carte, where the low headline fee buys compliance and a license to hang, and every tool you actually use is billed separately. Ask for the inclusions in writing before you compare two fee-based offers to each other.
The trade-off is straightforward: predictability and upside at volume, in exchange for fixed costs that do not shrink in a slow month. If you close one deal in a quarter, you still owe the monthly fee. The model rewards consistency, which is precisely why the support that produces consistency matters as much as the fee schedule.
Side by side
Commission structure
Traditional Split Model
The brokerage keeps a percentage of every commission. Common starting tiers are 70/30 or 80/20, often improving after you hit an annual cap.
100% Commission / Fee-Based Model
You keep the full commission on each closing. The brokerage is paid through fees rather than a percentage of your production.
Monthly fees
Traditional Split Model
Ranges widely. Some offices charge little or nothing monthly and recover it through the split; others add desk fees, office fees, or technology fees on top.
100% Commission / Fee-Based Model
Typically a modest recurring monthly or annual fee, disclosed up front, charged whether or not you close that month.
Transaction fees
Traditional Split Model
Often a per-transaction or franchise fee charged in addition to the split, deducted before your share is calculated.
100% Commission / Fee-Based Model
A flat per-closing fee is the main cost of the model. It does not scale with the size of the commission.
Who benefits at high volume
Traditional Split Model
Less favorable. A percentage-based cost rises with every additional deal, though a cap can limit the damage once you reach it.
100% Commission / Fee-Based Model
More favorable. Costs stay roughly flat per deal, so brokerage cost shrinks as a share of income the more you produce.
Who benefits at low volume
Traditional Split Model
More forgiving. If you close nothing, a percentage of nothing is nothing - your cost is tied to your production.
100% Commission / Fee-Based Model
Less forgiving. Fixed fees continue during slow months, so a low-volume year costs the same as a busy one in fixed terms.
Predictability of costs
Traditional Split Model
Variable. Your cost per deal depends on commission size, your current tier, and where you are against the cap.
100% Commission / Fee-Based Model
Highly predictable. You can calculate your annual brokerage cost from your expected number of closings.
| What You're Comparing | Traditional Split Model | 100% Commission / Fee-Based Model |
|---|---|---|
| Commission structure | The brokerage keeps a percentage of every commission. Common starting tiers are 70/30 or 80/20, often improving after you hit an annual cap. | You keep the full commission on each closing. The brokerage is paid through fees rather than a percentage of your production. |
| Monthly fees | Ranges widely. Some offices charge little or nothing monthly and recover it through the split; others add desk fees, office fees, or technology fees on top. | Typically a modest recurring monthly or annual fee, disclosed up front, charged whether or not you close that month. |
| Transaction fees | Often a per-transaction or franchise fee charged in addition to the split, deducted before your share is calculated. | A flat per-closing fee is the main cost of the model. It does not scale with the size of the commission. |
| Who benefits at high volume | Less favorable. A percentage-based cost rises with every additional deal, though a cap can limit the damage once you reach it. | More favorable. Costs stay roughly flat per deal, so brokerage cost shrinks as a share of income the more you produce. |
| Who benefits at low volume | More forgiving. If you close nothing, a percentage of nothing is nothing - your cost is tied to your production. | Less forgiving. Fixed fees continue during slow months, so a low-volume year costs the same as a busy one in fixed terms. |
| Predictability of costs | Variable. Your cost per deal depends on commission size, your current tier, and where you are against the cap. | Highly predictable. You can calculate your annual brokerage cost from your expected number of closings. |
General descriptions of how each model type typically works. Specific fees, caps, and inclusions vary by brokerage - ask any brokerage you are considering for its current schedule in writing.
The part the table can't show
Run the comparison above honestly and you will find the gap between the two models is smaller than the argument about them suggests - especially in your first couple of years. At four deals a year, the difference between models is usually a few thousand dollars. The difference between four deals and ten is a different career.
That is the uncomfortable conclusion of any honest commission comparison: for a new agent, commission structure is a secondary variable. The primary variable is whether anyone is teaching you to generate and close business consistently. Mentorship, training, and broker access move your deal count. Commission structure only divides what your deal count produces.
So compare the models, pick the one that fits your volume and your tolerance for fixed costs - and then spend the rest of your evaluation on support. We made the full argument in why mentorship matters when choosing a brokerage.
See What 100% Commission Looks Like Here
At Realty ONE Group Authentic, agents keep 100% of their commission and pay a flat fee per transaction. New and lower-volume agents start in mentorship: their first five deals close at a 70% split, which is how the mentor is compensated, and after the fifth deal they move to 100% commission.
CRM, transaction, marketing, and AI tools are included rather than sold as add-ons, and we keep the agent count deliberately small so broker access stays real.
Run your own numbers
Enter your current deal count, average commission, and split to compare what you keep today against the 70%-then-100% structure at ROG Authentic.
See What a Mentor Could Add to Your Income
Your take-home percentage
This isn't a guarantee. But agents who get mentorship close more deals because they:
Fix their follow-up systems
Learn how to handle objections
Get help on actual deals in real-time
Have someone holding them accountable
The same calculator lives on the mentorship program page, along with the full program details.
Keep comparing