Attendance system costs: how to build the three-year picture
06.09.2026
Attendance system costs are almost always compared as a one-off price - and that is exactly where the mistake starts. The price of a device is one line; what the system costs the company over three years is at least six.
This page does not quote a sales figure. The aim is to help you build your own calculation correctly, whichever model you end up choosing.
Why a one-off price misleads
In a device-based model the first-year price is usually the clearest number: terminal, installation, testing. In the second and third year the cost changes shape - maintenance, replacing failed hardware, installation repeated at new sites.
In a subscription model the picture is the reverse: entry cost is low but payment is continuous. These two shapes cannot be compared side by side - they have to be reconciled over the same period. Three years is the practical choice, because in most companies structural change fits inside that window.
Five cost categories
- Hardware - terminals, readers, cards, spare devices.
- Installation - cabling, mounting, configuration, testing, acceptance.
- Maintenance and support - annual service, repairs, software updates.
- Adding a new site - the full cycle repeated at every new point.
- Replacement and failure - device lifespan, lost cards, damaged readers.
The sixth, frequently forgotten line is internal time: accepting devices, checking records, making corrections, the administrative work around departing employees. That line does not look like money, but it is measured in hours every month and converts directly into salary cost.
How point count drives cost
This is the biggest structural difference between the two models.
In a device-based model, cost rises almost linearly with the number of points: every new entry point means separate hardware and separate installation. A company with five points goes through the same process five times.
In a mobile model a new point is mostly a row in the structure. No hardware budget appears, and the opening date does not depend on an installation schedule.
The practical conclusion follows: when comparing the two models the key question is not headcount but how many new recording points will open over three years. That answer often settles the decision faster than the cost figure itself.
The three hidden lines
First, opening a new site. In one office, installation looks like a one-time job. At the second and third site the same cycle - order, wait, cabling, testing, acceptance - repeats, extending both the budget and the opening date. In practice this is the most commonly missed line.
Second, the work around departures. Cards have to be collected, access closed, device records updated. For one or two people this is not work; for thirty a year it is a standing obligation.
Third, unrecorded cases. When a device fails or conditions prevent a record, that day's row is filled in by hand. A small number of such corrections is not a problem; a systematic one is real lost time every month.
A three-year comparison
Build a simple table. Rows: the six categories above. Columns: the first year and each year after. Then fill in two scenarios: with your current point count and with the planned one.
In practice the result comes out like this: in a company with one fixed entrance the difference is small, and the decision is usually driven by other factors - conditions, phone restrictions, the need for a physical barrier. Once the point count rises above three, or field work is added, the difference becomes clear.
The remaining comparison criteria are on the alternatives to a fingerprint system page.
Building your own calculation
- Write down the current number of recording points.
- Add the new points planned over three years.
- Fill in the first-year and subsequent-year figures for each category.
- Write internal time in hours and multiply by an hourly value.
- Put the two models side by side in the same table.
Once the numbers are in, the final check is simple: which row is the most volatile? In practice it is almost always the "new site" row - and that is where the budget risk sits.
A worked example: one company, two calculations
A logistics company had 140 employees across three branches and two warehouses. Two more warehouses were planned over the next three years.
Finance calculated both options in the same table.
The device-based option. Year one: terminals, installation and configuration for five points. Years two and three: annual maintenance, replacement of one terminal, the full cycle for two new warehouses. Internal time: roughly six hours a month - checking devices, correcting records, handling departures.
The subscription option. Year one: setup and subscription. Later years: subscription only. A new warehouse: a row in the structure. Internal time: roughly two hours a month.
The first-year difference came out smaller than expected - the price of the devices alone was not decisive. The gap opened in years two and three, and it came from two lines: adding new sites and internal time.
The company noted one more thing: the hardest part of the calculation was measuring internal time. To do it, HR filled in a simple table for a month - which task took how long. That table later became the baseline for measuring the result of the rollout.
The three most common calculation mistakes
Comparing the first year only. In a device-based option year one looks most expensive and later years cheap - but the new-site line repeats year one every time.
Leaving out internal time. This line does not look like money, so it falls out of the table. Yet six hours a month is seventy-two hours a year - and that is a direct salary cost.
Ignoring expansion. The calculation is done with the current point count while the decision covers the next three years. In practice this is the line that creates the biggest difference.
The next step
Once the calculation is done, it helps to see how a subscription model looks at your size.
Calculate the QRGate price for your number of branches and employees, or first look at what it does.
