10 Best Globalization Partners Alternatives 2026

Pebl usually enters the conversation when a company is still early in its global hiring journey and just wants something uncomplicated. The whole platform feels intentionally light, not in a bad way, more like “let’s not make hiring one person in Portugal a three-week project.”

Teams that move from Globalization Partners to Pebl are often reacting to cost or to GP’s heavier processes. Pebl won’t hold your hand through every obscure compliance twist, but for straightforward setups in common markets, it gets the job done with very little noise. If you’re not dealing with tricky benefits or sensitive legal terrain, the simplicity is refreshing.

Deel comes up so often now that it’s practically impossible to ignore. Most companies look at it because they’ve heard it’s flexible, and that part is true; the product supports so many different hiring and payment models that it suits teams whose needs shift quarter by quarter.

I’ve watched companies leave Globalization Partners for Deel simply because they want contractors, EOR employees, global payroll, equity support, and vendor payments all in one place instead of stitching things together.

The part to watch is pricing; it’s not that it’s expensive, but the mix of services can add up if you’re not paying attention. Still, if your hiring model changes frequently, Deel usually handles those pivots better than GP.

Multiplier tends to appeal to companies that want more visibility into what’s happening under the hood. I’ve seen HR and legal teams move to Multiplier simply because they want more direct control over documents, compliance rules, and how certain workflows are configured.

GP keeps a lot of that abstracted, which some people appreciate and others don’t. Multiplier isn’t as “plug-and-play,” but if you prefer understanding exactly how a country’s rules are being handled and making adjustments yourself, it’s one of the few platforms that gives you that latitude.

It works best when you’ve got someone internally who likes managing details rather than outsourcing all of it.

RemoFirst is more pragmatic than glamorous, and I mean that in a good way. It’s perfect for teams that are contractor-heavy and don’t want to engage in full EOR setups unless absolutely necessary.

I often see clients switch from GP to RemoFirst because they realize they’re paying enterprise-level fees for roles that don’t require that level of infrastructure. RemoFirst gets contractors onboarded quickly, pays them reliably, and doesn’t bury you in admin.

Also, it is one of the most cost-effective solutions when you look for a quality EOR option with low cost.

Now, Rippling is a bit of an odd one in this list because evaluating it purely as an EOR misses the point. Companies bring Rippling into the conversation when they’re tired of juggling multiple systems. If your HRIS, payroll, IT provisioning, device management, and access controls are scattered across five platforms, Rippling’s “single system” approach starts looking very appealing.

It can’t replace Globalization Partners everywhere; its global coverage is still narrower, but in markets it does support, the idea of hiring someone and instantly handling their laptop, app access, and payroll from the same screen is hard to ignore.

Remote is the “steady middle ground.” If someone tells me they want something more affordable than Globalization Partners but not a stripped-down solution, Remote is usually where we land. It covers enough countries to be viable for serious expansion, and the compliance backbone is strong enough that legal teams don’t panic.

Oyster is often the choice for teams that don’t want to run a complex global hiring operation; they just want it to work without becoming a full-time job. The interface is clean, the workflows are straightforward, and the pricing is pretty transparent.

When someone switches from GP to Oyster, it’s usually not because of a major issue; it’s simply that Oyster feels less heavy. You don’t get the same level of deep country nuance that GP has built over the years, but plenty of companies don’t need that. If most of your hires are in well-supported markets and you value an easy, predictable experience, Oyster feels like a breath of fresh air.

Papaya is usually pushed by the finance team long before HR brings it up. The whole product is unapologetically payroll-centric, and some companies really appreciate that. The migration from GP to Papaya often starts after someone gets tired of clunky reconciliation processes or unclear invoicing structures.

Papaya’s automation helps clean that up, and the reporting is genuinely strong. The EOR side is solid too, though sometimes more expensive in specific regions.

Plane makes sense when a company wants to automate as much as possible and prefers API-driven workflows over clicking through dashboards. Engineering-heavy teams gravitate to it because they can plug hiring and payroll into their internal systems rather than bending their processes to fit a vendor UI. When people move from GP to Plane, it’s rarely about cost; it’s more about wanting technical control.

GoGlobal is the option people choose when they’re expanding into countries where the margin for error is tiny. Think strict labor laws, heavy enforcement, or industries where compliance is non-negotiable.

Compared to GP, GoGlobal tends to run a more conservative process, more reviews, more documentation, more back-and-forth, and while that slows things down, it’s also where the value comes from. Companies that switch do it because they want an EOR that behaves like a risk partner rather than a service provider.