Repax vs PCX Solutions comes down to which bill you are trying to lower. PCX models packaging changes to cut what you owe in EPR fees. Repax turns one product record into every return you have to file.
Repax is the better buy for most producers, because you own the data and the workflow and can start for nothing. PCX is the stronger pick for a global consumer brand with thousands of SKUs that wants fee modelling and advisers across 49 markets.
What each product is actually trying to lower
Both tools get you to a filed return. They are built around different ideas of where the pain is.
PCX treats the fee as the problem. Their software maps your packaging to SKUs, business units and compliance markets, then runs source reduction scenarios so you can see what a lighter pack would do to your bill before you change anything.
Fee calculations, projections and allocation by SKU are the centre of the product.
Repax treats the data as the problem. You describe each product and its packaging once, and that record answers whatever the next scheme asks for, in whatever shape it wants.
The bet is that most of the work in Extended Producer Responsibility is keeping a moving product catalogue accurate, not modelling the fee.
Neither idea is wrong. They just point at different budgets, which is the clearest way to see who each one is for.
Repax and PCX Solutions across the things that drive your cost
The table below is organised around what actually moves your cost and effort in an EPR year, rather than a feature list. Read it top to bottom and the split gets obvious.
| What drives your cost | Repax | PCX Solutions |
|---|---|---|
| How packaging data gets in | Describe each product once in Core, then reuse it | You upload it, PCX cleanses and consolidates it |
| Waste streams covered | Packaging, batteries, electronics, textiles | Packaging and plastic only |
| Markets | Anywhere you file, on your own data | 49+ markets across North America, Europe, Asia Pacific |
| Lowering the fee itself | Accurate data, so you pay on what you actually place | Source reduction and eco-modulation modelling |
| Who files | You do, from the report Core builds | PCX files the jurisdictional reports |
| EU Declaration of Conformity | Declare issues signed DoCs (Article 39) | Not offered |
| Beyond compliance | Not offered | Recycled plastic sourcing, recovery projects, verified claims |
| What the software costs | Free, then 29 to 59 EUR a month, published | Not published, book a demo |
Two rows carry most of the decision. Repax covers four waste streams and PCX covers one, and PCX files for you while Repax hands you the finished report.
What PCX Solutions does that Repax cannot
This is a real gap and worth being straight about, because on a few axes PCX is simply further along.
PCX prepares and files jurisdictional reports across more than 49 markets, spanning US states, Canadian provinces, the EU and UK, and a run of Asia Pacific markets plus Turkey, Kenya and South Africa. Repax builds the report and you submit it.
They also model the fee in a way Repax does not. Fee calculations, projections, allocation by SKU and source reduction scenarios are the product's centre of gravity, and for a brand with a very large portfolio that modelling can be worth more than any software subscription.
Behind the software sits a services layer. PCX has teams on the ground in the US, Asia and Europe, and advises governments and schemes on EPR policy.
They also act as the producer responsibility organisation for more than 100 companies in the Philippines.
And PCX sells something no EPR platform does. Alongside compliance they will source post-consumer recycled plastic, fund recovery projects, and back verified recovery claims. If your sustainability team wants that in the same contract, Repax has nothing to offer there.
The case for Repax
Repax wins on scope, on ownership, and on being able to start at all.
Every stream on one record. PCX covers packaging and plastic. Core carries packaging, batteries, electronics and textiles on the same product record, so a battery obligation in France and a packaging obligation in Germany draw on one source.
Our best multi-stream EPR software roundup compares that field properly.
The EU Declaration of Conformity. From August 2026 anyone placing packaging on the EU market must issue a signed DoC. Declare produces one per packaging type, signed by a named person under PPWR Article 39, with the technical file behind it. PCX does not offer this.
You keep the data. The product record lives in your workspace and answers the next regulation too. With a done-for-you model the working data sits with the vendor, and moving is a project.
A price you can read. Repax pricing is public, which is rare here. Free tier at 0 EUR a month, Growth at 29 EUR, Pro at 59 EUR, enterprise custom for high volume (ex VAT, as of August 2026).
One honest caveat. Comply, the part that will handle registrations and submissions, is still being built. Until it ships, Repax produces the return and the filing step stays with you, and that is exactly the step PCX takes off your desk.
Paying for the software and paying the schemes
There are two numbers in an EPR budget, and the tools attack different ones.
The software bill is the one you can compare today. Repax publishes it, starting at nothing and rising to 59 EUR a month before you reach a custom enterprise tier.
PCX publishes nothing, and every route in starts with a demo or an EPR consultation, so the figure depends on your markets, SKU count and how much advisory support you take.
The EPR fee bill is the other one, and PCX's whole pitch rests on it being the bigger number for a large brand. If your fees run to seven figures, software that shaves a few percent off through packaging changes pays for itself quickly, and that logic is sound.
It is a weaker argument the smaller you are. Below a certain portfolio the modelling saves less than the enterprise contract costs, and a free tier you can start this afternoon is worth more than a scenario engine you have to be sold.
Picking between them
Match your situation to the list rather than the feature count.
- You sell thousands of SKUs across North America, Europe and Asia. PCX is built for exactly this, and the fee modelling plus on-the-ground advisers earn their keep. Our best enterprise EPR compliance software roundup covers that tier.
- You have batteries, electronics or textiles as well as packaging. PCX does not cover those streams. Repax carries all four on one record.
- You need an EU Declaration of Conformity. Only Repax offers it, through Declare.
- You want someone else to submit the reports. PCX files across its markets today. Repax will when Comply ships, and until then the submission is yours.
- Your sustainability team wants recycled content or recovery claims. PCX sells that next to compliance. Repax does not.
- You want to start without a sales cycle. Repax has a free tier and published prices, so you can load products and see the reporting before anyone calls you.
Questions people ask when comparing Repax and PCX Solutions
These are the questions that come up most when producers put the two side by side. Short answers follow.
Is Repax or PCX Solutions better for EPR compliance?
For most producers, Repax. You get packaging, batteries, electronics and textiles on one product record, an EU Declaration of Conformity, a workflow your own team runs, and a published price with a free tier.
PCX is the better answer for a global consumer brand with a very large packaging portfolio that wants fee modelling and reports filed across 49 markets.
What does PCX Solutions cost?
PCX does not publish pricing. The route in is a demo or an EPR consultation, and the figure depends on your markets, SKU count and how much advisory support you take. Repax publishes its prices, from a free tier to 29 and 59 EUR a month, with a custom enterprise tier above that (as of August 2026).
Does PCX Solutions cover batteries or electronics?
No. PCX covers packaging and plastic. Battery, electronics (WEEE) and textile obligations sit outside what it does, which is the main scope difference against Repax.
Can Repax file my EPR reports for me?
Not yet. Core builds the report each scheme expects and you submit it. Comply, the product that will handle registrations and submissions, is still in development. PCX prepares and files reports today, so if handing over the submission is the deciding factor, that point goes to PCX.
Which one is better for lowering my EPR fees?
They lower the bill in different ways. PCX models source reduction and eco-modulation directly, showing what a packaging change would do to your fees before you make it.
Repax lowers it by keeping the product data accurate, so you pay on what you actually place on the market rather than on a rounded estimate. At a very large portfolio the modelling is the stronger lever.
Does either one handle the EU Declaration of Conformity?
Only Repax. Declare issues one signed declaration per packaging type under PPWR Article 39, timestamped and linked to its evidence, with the technical file behind it. PCX does not offer a DoC product.
