Uber Eats vs Grubhub Commission Rates Compared

Uber Eats and Grubhub occupy different positions in the US delivery market, but both take a significant cut of every order. Uber Eats, backed by Uber’s global logistics network, offers tiered plans that mirror the ride-hailing company’s scale. Grubhub, one of the original delivery platforms, uses a modular fee structure that separates marketplace access from delivery logistics. For restaurants listed on both platforms, the commission differences between them can amount to thousands of dollars per month — money that often goes unnoticed because the fee structures are so different they’re difficult to compare directly.

This guide provides the detailed side-by-side analysis restaurants need. We break down every major cost component, calculate the real impact on identical orders, and explain when each platform’s economics favor your specific type of restaurant. Whether you’re evaluating which platform to prioritize or trying to optimize costs across both, this is the comparison that clarifies the numbers.

Side-by-Side Commission Comparison

The following table compares the key commission-related factors between Uber Eats and Grubhub as of 2026. Individual rates vary based on negotiated terms, market, and promotional programs.

Commission Structure Differences

Uber Eats and Grubhub take fundamentally different approaches to structuring their fees. Understanding these differences is essential for accurately comparing total costs.

Uber Eats: Tiered Plans with Self-Delivery

Uber Eats organizes its restaurant partnerships into three tiers built around delivery responsibility. The Lite plan at 15% is designed for restaurants that handle their own delivery — the restaurant manages drivers and logistics while Uber Eats provides marketplace access, order processing, and customer-facing features. The Plus plan at 25% uses Uber’s delivery network with standard visibility, and the Premium plan at 30% adds priority search placement and enhanced marketing features.

Uber Eats’s competitive advantage lies in its infrastructure. As part of the Uber ecosystem, the platform benefits from a massive driver network originally built for ride-hailing. This means delivery coverage is typically strong in urban areas, and the platform can handle demand spikes more efficiently than competitors with smaller driver pools. For a broader look at how Uber Eats fits within the delivery commission landscape, see our guide on how to audit delivery platform fees.

Grubhub: Modular Fee Components

Grubhub uses a component-based pricing model. The marketplace commission (typically 10%–15%) covers the platform’s order aggregation services: app presence, payment processing infrastructure, customer support, and access to the Grubhub customer base. The delivery commission (an additional 10%–15%) covers driver dispatch, routing, and delivery logistics.

Restaurants can opt out of the delivery component by handling their own deliveries, paying only the marketplace commission. Additionally, Grubhub offers marketing premiums — optional percentage increases to the commission in exchange for higher visibility in search results, inclusion in featured collections, and promotional placement. These premiums can add 5% to 10% to the total commission rate.

The modular approach gives restaurants more granular control but adds complexity. A restaurant must actively manage three separate cost components (marketplace, delivery, and marketing) rather than selecting a single plan tier. For more context on how platforms layer these fees, read our guide on why delivery commission rates change.

Which Platform Costs More?

The total cost comparison between Uber Eats and Grubhub depends on three variables: the base plan selected, whether the restaurant uses self-delivery, and how much marketing spend is involved.

For restaurants using platform-provided delivery at comparable visibility levels, Uber Eats Plus (25%) and a standard Grubhub arrangement (12% marketplace + 12% delivery = 24%) are within a percentage point of each other. The small base rate advantage Grubhub holds at this level is typically offset by its slightly higher payment processing fees (2.75%–3.05% vs. Uber Eats’s 2.5%–3%).

Marketing costs create the largest divergence. Uber Eats charges for sponsored listings separately, similar to a digital advertising budget that can be scaled up or down. Grubhub bakes marketing costs into the commission percentage through its premium system, which means marketing spend increases the effective commission rate on every order, not just orders generated by marketing.

For self-delivery restaurants, Uber Eats’s Lite plan at 15% competes directly with Grubhub’s marketplace-only option at 10%–15%. If a restaurant negotiates Grubhub’s marketplace commission to 10%, it gains a 5-percentage-point advantage over Uber Eats Lite. At 15%, the two are equivalent. The negotiation leverage depends on order volume, location, and contract terms.

Real Cost Comparison: $35 Order

On a single $35 order with marketing included, Grubhub costs $0.98 more than Uber Eats due to the marketing premium. Without the marketing premium, Grubhub’s total deductions drop to $9.36 (effective rate: 26.7%), making it cheaper than Uber Eats Plus.

Hidden Cost Differences

Several less visible costs differ between Uber Eats and Grubhub. These distinctions often appear only when you audit payout statements line by line. For a comprehensive overview of what to look for, see our guide on hidden delivery fees most restaurants miss.

Refund cost allocation. Uber Eats and Grubhub both deduct refund costs from restaurant payouts, but the allocation differs. Uber Eats attributes refund responsibility based on a fault determination system — restaurant errors (wrong items, missing items) are charged to the restaurant, while delivery issues (late delivery, spills) are absorbed by the platform. Grubhub’s refund allocation is less transparent, and restaurants report that refund deductions sometimes appear without clear justification for why the restaurant bears the cost.

Promotional participation costs. Uber Eats runs promotional campaigns where the cost-sharing arrangement varies by promotion type. Some promotions are fully funded by Uber, while others require restaurant co-funding. Grubhub integrates promotional costs into its marketing premium structure, meaning restaurants paying a marketing premium are automatically enrolled in certain promotional programs. This bundling can make it difficult to isolate the cost of individual promotions.

Technology and integration fees. Uber Eats has moved toward a fully app-based order management system, minimizing hardware fees. Grubhub still charges tablet fees in some markets, though the amount varies. Both platforms may charge integration fees for restaurants using third-party POS systems that connect to the platform’s order feed.

Driver tip handling. Both platforms pass driver tips through to drivers without deducting commission on the tip amount. However, the way tips are displayed on payout statements differs, and some restaurants mistakenly believe tips are being included in the commission calculation. Verifying that tips are excluded from the commission base is an important part of statement auditing.

When to Choose Each Platform

The choice between Uber Eats and Grubhub — or the decision to optimize your presence on both — depends on your restaurant’s market position, delivery capabilities, and cost sensitivity.

Choose Uber Eats when:

• You want access to a larger and growing customer base — Uber Eats holds approximately 23% of the US market and is expanding.
• You have your own delivery drivers and can use the Lite plan at 15% for a clean, predictable cost structure.
• You operate in urban markets where Uber’s driver network ensures fast, reliable delivery with minimal delays.
• You prefer tiered pricing with clear plan boundaries rather than managing multiple fee components.
• You want access to Uber’s advertising tools, which offer campaign-level control over marketing spend.

Choose Grubhub when:

• You want maximum control over each cost component — marketplace access, delivery, and marketing can be managed independently.
• You can generate adequate order volume without paying marketing premiums, keeping your effective rate below 25%.
• You operate in Northeast US markets where Grubhub has historically maintained stronger customer loyalty and brand recognition.
• You handle your own delivery and can negotiate the marketplace commission below 15%, undercutting Uber Eats’s Lite plan.
• You want the flexibility to adjust marketing spend on a percentage basis rather than managing a separate advertising budget.

Use both platforms when:

• You want to capture demand from both customer bases — many diners have a preferred platform and will not switch.
• You can manage the operational complexity of receiving orders from multiple sources simultaneously.
• Your food cost and margins support paying commissions on both platforms while remaining profitable.
• You want data on which platform performs better in your market before committing to one over the other.

Whichever platform you use, regularly auditing your payout statements is the only way to ensure you’re paying what you agreed to. For a step-by-step approach, see our guide on how to audit delivery platform fees.