How to Choose an R&D Tax Credit Provider
Key Takeaways
- We compared eleven R&D tax credit providers on the factors that matter to a buyer: fees and fee model, examination and inquiry support, who performs the work, track record, and guarantees.
- Most providers disclose little publicly. Only one firm besides Strike publishes a price, none publicly states that examination support runs through the statute of limitations, and none publicly discloses a money-back guarantee.
- Examination and inquiry support is the single biggest factor, because an R&D claim can be questioned years after filing, and whether support is included or a separate paid engagement varies widely across firms.
- A fully automated or do-it-yourself study, run without expert review, can leave a claim thin on the documentation the IRS now expects, which is why experienced review matters.
- On this scorecard Strike ranks first, on a published fee, a success-based fee model, examination support included through the statute of limitations, and a money-back guarantee. Several larger firms carry longer track records. Strike is an R&D credit specialist charging a 20 percent contingency fee.
Introduction
Choosing who prepares your research and development tax credit is a real decision, because the same claim can be prepared well or poorly, supported for years or not at all, and priced in ways that share your risk or leave it entirely with you. This guide compares eleven providers on the factors a buyer actually weighs, using each firm's public information, and shows where Strike fits.
How should you compare R&D tax credit providers?
Compare providers on what affects your outcome and your risk: how they charge and whether the fee is tied to results, whether examination and inquiry support is included and for how long, who performs the work, their track record, and any guarantee. Most firms disclose little, so press for specifics before signing.
The criteria, and why each one matters to you
We scored each provider on seven criteria, weighted by how much each tends to matter when you are choosing a provider. Here is what each one measures and why it belongs in the decision.
A note on focus versus breadth. Some provider rankings reward breadth, the ability to layer many services. We weight focused R&D expertise instead, because the credit is a specialized determination under Section 41 and depth in that one area is what defends a claim. We do account for coordination, since the R&D credit has to work alongside Section 174 treatment of research costs and state credits, and a focused specialist can still handle that coordination.
A note on automation. We did not score technology on its own, because what matters is the strength and defensibility of the claim, not whether software was used to prepare it. One caution is worth stating plainly: the IRS has been raising the documentation bar for R&D claims, moving toward business-component-level detail on Form 6765. A fully automated or do-it-yourself process, run without experienced review, can leave a claim thin exactly where that documentation needs to be strongest. The most dependable approach pairs efficient tools with people who know how an R&D claim is examined.
We scored each provider 1 to 5 on every criterion. Where a provider does not state something publicly, we say so rather than assume. Competitor information here comes only from each firm's public pages, accessed June 15, 2026.
The scorecard
Weighted scores on a 1 to 5 scale, ranked. The reasoning behind each score sits in the criteria above and in each provider summary below.
Provider by provider
Each summary states the provider's fee model, its examination and inquiry support terms, and any guarantee, exactly as the evidence shows. Where a provider does not say something publicly, we say that plainly.
Tri-Merit
Tri-Merit states there is a fee only if the client decides to proceed with a study, preceded by a no-cost feasibility assessment, and it does not publish a specific figure [Tri-Merit, R&D page, accessed June 15, 2026]. It states that examination and inquiry support is included with every study at no additional cost [Tri-Merit, R&D page, accessed June 15, 2026]. Tri-Merit does not publicly disclose a money-back guarantee.
alliantgroup
alliantgroup does not publicly disclose a specific R&D fee [alliantgroup, R&D pages, accessed June 15, 2026]. Its frequently-asked-questions material states that examination and inquiry support is included in its engagements [alliantgroup, R&D FAQ, accessed June 15, 2026]. It does not publicly disclose a money-back guarantee.
KBKG
KBKG does not publish a specific R&D fee. Its own older question-and-answer material describes a fixed-fee arrangement that is not contingency based, and its current pages direct prospects to request a proposal [KBKG, R&D question-and-answer and R&D service pages, accessed June 15, 2026]. It offers examination and inquiry support through a dedicated defense-focused service page, and whether that support is included or billed separately is not stated [KBKG, R&D examination-defense page, accessed June 15, 2026]. KBKG does not publicly disclose a money-back or results guarantee.
Clarus R+D / Arvo
Clarus R+D, now operating under the Arvo brand, publishes a specific fee structure of annual fees plus 20 percent of total credit value [Arvo, R&D pricing page, accessed June 15, 2026]. It states that it handles examination and inquiry support on the client's behalf [Arvo, R&D page, accessed June 15, 2026]. It does not publicly disclose a money-back guarantee.
BDO USA
BDO USA does not publicly disclose its R&D fee, though it offers complimentary preliminary reviews. It states that it supports clients through federal and state examinations, assists with inquiries, and produces exam-ready reports [BDO USA, R&D pages, accessed June 15, 2026]. It does not publicly disclose a money-back guarantee.
Deloitte
Deloitte does not publicly disclose its R&D fee. It provides examination support through its tax controversy practice, which is a separate practice from the R&D credit study rather than support bundled into it [Deloitte, tax controversy materials, accessed June 15, 2026]. It does not publicly disclose a money-back guarantee.
RSM US
RSM US does not publicly disclose its R&D fee. It builds studies designed to withstand scrutiny and provides examination, appeals, and dispute-resolution support through a separate controversy team [RSM US, R&D and tax controversy pages, accessed June 15, 2026]. It does not publicly disclose a money-back guarantee.
Baker Tilly
Baker Tilly does not publicly disclose its R&D fee. Its own published insight notes that Circular 230 prohibits tax preparers from performing R&D engagements under a contingency-fee arrangement [Baker Tilly, R&D insight, accessed June 15, 2026]. It offers examination and appeals representation through a separate tax controversy team [Baker Tilly, tax controversy page, accessed June 15, 2026]. It does not publicly disclose a money-back guarantee.
SPRX / Onshore
SPRX, now operating as Onshore, does not publicly disclose a specific fee [Onshore, R&D page, accessed June 15, 2026]. It states that examination and inquiry support is included at no additional cost [Onshore, R&D page, accessed June 15, 2026]. It does not publicly disclose a money-back guarantee.
Engineered Tax Services
Engineered Tax Services does not publicly disclose its R&D fee [Engineered Tax Services, R&D page, accessed June 15, 2026]. Its R&D page does not offer a post-filing examination or inquiry service, and it states that properly documented claims do not increase examination likelihood [Engineered Tax Services, R&D page, accessed June 15, 2026]. It does not publicly disclose a money-back guarantee.
How Strike compares
Strike charges a 20 percent contingency fee, a success fee with no separate or hourly charges. Strike provides examination and inquiry support, standing between the client and the IRS through the statute of limitations. Strike backs its work with a money-back guarantee and has delivered more than $300 million in credits. As an R&D credit specialist, Strike concentrates on this one area of tax law.
Strike is also an R&D credit specialist. Rather than treating the credit as one service among many, Strike concentrates on this single area of tax law, which is the kind of focused depth that holds up when a claim is examined. Where larger firms carry deep benches and broad service menus, Strike's position is a focused specialist that ties its fee to your result, stands with you if the claim is questioned, and pairs efficient tools with experienced review rather than leaning on automation alone.
Strike does not lead on every measure, and this scorecard shows that. Several firms carry larger publicly stated track records and longer histories. The comparison is meant to be read on its merits.
Your next step
The fastest way to know what your company qualifies for is a quick eligibility review. Strike offers one at no cost and with no obligation. Call 1-800-916-5165 to speak with our team and find out what your research and development work could be worth.
This comparison reflects our own analysis using each provider's publicly available information as of June 15, 2026, weighted by factors we believe matter to buyers. It is not an endorsement or a guarantee of any provider's performance, and providers' terms can change. Please confirm current terms directly with any provider before deciding.
Frequently Asked Questions
Look at how a provider charges and whether the fee is tied to your result, whether examination and inquiry support is included and how long it lasts, who performs and signs the study and their credentials, the provider's track record, and whether there is a guarantee. Because most firms disclose little publicly, ask for these specifics in writing before you sign.
It depends on how you want to share risk. A success or contingency fee ties what you pay to the benefit you receive. Fixed and hourly fees are common among national accounting firms, in part because Circular 230 restricts contingency fees for tax preparers in certain situations. Hourly billing also means your cost is not tied to the credit you actually receive. Ask whether you pay if no credit results, and what is included.
It varies. Some providers state that support is included with the study at no extra cost, some provide it through a separate controversy practice that is a distinct engagement, and some do not address it on their R&D pages. Ask whether support is included, who provides it, and how long it lasts, ideally through the statute of limitations.
Focused expertise matters, because the R&D credit is a specialized determination under Section 41 and strength in other services does not automatically transfer. Coordination also matters, since the credit interacts with Section 174 and state credits, and a focused specialist can handle that coordination.
Most do not publicly disclose one. Among the providers compared here, Strike is the firm that offers a money-back guarantee.
Strike charges a 20 percent contingency fee, a success fee with no separate or hourly charges. It includes examination and inquiry support, with Strike standing between you and the IRS through the statute of limitations, and the work is backed by a money-back guarantee.
Related Articles
