Home / Kitchen Extraction Cleaning / Guide
Kitchen extraction cleaning - comparing quotes
Two extraction cleaning quotes with different prices tell you nothing unless they're for the same job - a cheap one covering only the visible parts against a proper whole-system clean isn't a fair comparison. Making quotes like-for-like - same scope, standard and records - lets you compare on value, not hidden assumptions. Here is how to compare quotes without comparing apples to oranges. This is general commentary on comparing quotes.
The short answer
It's natural to compare extraction cleaning quotes on price - but price is only comparable if the quotes are for the same job, and often they aren't. Comparing a cheap partial clean against a proper whole-system one on price alone is comparing apples to oranges - and usually leads to picking the wrong one. Here is how to compare fairly. This is general commentary. Why quotes often aren't comparable. Extraction cleaning quotes can differ enormously in what they actually cover: one might quote a proper whole-system clean (canopy, filters, ductwork, fan, to TR19 Grease, with records), another only the easy visible parts (the canopy and filters), and a third something in between - and their prices reflect these different jobs. So a lower price often means a smaller job (doing less), not better value for the same work. Comparing these prices directly is meaningless - you're comparing different things. The fix: make the quotes like-for-like. To compare fairly, first make the quotes comparable - for the same defined job. This has two parts: (1) Give each contractor the same brief. Tell each the same things about your system (cooking, system, access) and let each survey it - so they're all quoting for the same actual system (as covered in briefing a contractor). (2) Define the same scope, standard and records. Require each quote to cover the same job: the whole system (canopy, filters, ductwork throughout, fan), cleaned to the same standard (TR19 Grease), with the same records (report, before-and-after photographs, certificate). State this explicitly so each quotes for it. Once each quote is for the same defined job, they're like-for-like - the prices are for the same work, so they're genuinely comparable. Watch for the ways quotes differ. When you get the quotes back, check they really are for the same job - because a cheap one may still quietly cover less (excluding the ductwork or fan, leaving out access or the certificate, as covered in the cheap-quote pages). So read each quote against the defined scope: does it cover the whole system? To TR19 Grease? With the records? With access included (not extra)? Any that fall short aren't like-for-like - either get them corrected or factor the difference in. Then compare on value. With genuinely like-for-like quotes, you can compare meaningfully - on value, not just price: the price for the same proper clean, plus the contractor's credentials (insurance, accreditation), their proof of work (photographs, certificate), and their reputation. So you choose the best value among proper offers - which may not be the lowest headline (a slightly higher price from a properly credentialed, proven contractor can be better value than a rock-bottom one). So compare quotes without comparing apples to oranges by making them like-for-like (same brief, same defined scope, standard and records), checking they really match, and then comparing on value and quality - not by taking the lowest number at face value. So make them comparable, then compare on value. This is general commentary on comparing quotes.
Key points
Why quotes aren't comparable
The reason comparing extraction cleaning quotes on price alone is misleading is that different quotes often cover different jobs - so their prices aren't comparable. Extraction cleaning quotes can vary enormously in scope: one might be for a proper whole-system clean (the canopy, filters, ductwork throughout, and fan, cleaned to TR19 Grease, with records), another for only the easy visible parts (the canopy and filters), and a third for something in between. Their prices reflect these different jobs - so a lower price usually means a smaller job (doing less), not better value for the same work.
So putting two quotes side by side and comparing the numbers, without knowing what each covers, is comparing apples to oranges - the cheaper number may simply be a smaller job. And this misleads you toward the wrong choice: picking the low headline that turns out to be a partial clean (leaving the fire risk), thinking you got a bargain. So before you can compare quotes meaningfully, you have to make sure they're for the same job - otherwise the comparison is meaningless. This is the core problem, and the next sections cover the fix: making the quotes like-for-like. So why quotes aren't comparable: different quotes cover different jobs. So different jobs make prices incomparable. This is general commentary.
Give each the same brief
The first step to making quotes comparable is to give each contractor the same brief - so they're all quoting for the same actual job. If you tell one contractor a lot about your system and another little, or let one survey and not another, they'll quote for different understandings of the job - and their quotes won't be comparable. So give each the same information: the same account of your cooking (type and volume), your system (size, ductwork, fan), and your access - and, best of all, let each survey or see the system (so each assesses the same real system directly).
This ensures each contractor is quoting for the same actual system, understood the same way - removing differences that come from different information rather than different value. It's the same good-briefing practice covered in briefing a contractor, applied across the contractors you're comparing: the same brief to each. Combined with letting each survey, this means any difference in their quotes reflects a real difference (in their price, scope or approach for the same job), not a difference in what they were told. So giving each the same brief - same information, same actual system - is the foundation of a fair comparison. Without it, the quotes start from different understandings and can't be compared. So give each the same brief. So same information, same actual system. This is general commentary.
Define the same scope and standard
The second step is to define the same scope, standard and records for every quote - so each is priced for the same defined job. As well as the same brief, state explicitly what you want each quote to cover: the scope - the whole system (canopy, filters, ductwork throughout, and fan), not just the visible parts; the standard - cleaned to TR19 Grease (the recognised standard), not a vague 'tidy'; and the records - the report, before-and-after photographs (of the hidden parts), and the certificate. Ask each contractor to quote for exactly this.
By defining the job this way, you set a common specification that each quote must address - so the quotes are for the same defined work, and their prices are genuinely comparable (the price for the same proper whole-system clean). This also flushes out contractors who don't want to quote for the full scope (a telling sign) and prevents the low-headline-for-less problem (since each is quoting for the whole job). So defining the same scope, standard and records - the whole system, to TR19 Grease, with records - is what makes the quotes like-for-like: same job, same specification, comparable prices. Together with the same brief, it turns a set of incomparable quotes into a fair comparison. So define the same scope and standard for each quote. So the whole system, to TR19 Grease, with records. This is general commentary.
Check they really match
When the quotes come back, don't assume they all match the defined job - check each against the scope, because a cheap one may still quietly cover less. Even with the same brief and a defined scope, a contractor might return a quote that falls short - excluding the ductwork or fan, leaving access or the certificate as extras, or cleaning to a lesser standard - to hit a lower price (the ways cheap quotes cut corners, covered in the cheap-quote pages). So read each quote carefully against the specification you set: Does it cover the whole system (canopy, filters, ductwork, fan)? To TR19 Grease? With the report, photographs and certificate? With access included, not as an extra?
Any quote that falls short of the defined scope isn't like-for-like - so either ask the contractor to re-quote for the full scope, or, if comparing as-is, mentally add the cost of the missing parts (so you compare the true cost of the same job). This check is what ensures the quotes really are comparable, not just apparently so. It's easy to be misled by a low headline that quietly does less - reading each quote against the scope catches this. So check they really match - read each quote against the scope - before comparing. This makes the comparison genuinely like-for-like. So check each quote covers the defined scope. So read each quote against the scope. This is general commentary.
Then compare on value
Once the quotes are genuinely like-for-like - each for the same defined job, checked to match - you can finally compare them meaningfully: on value, not just price. With the scope equalised, the price now means something (it's the price for the same proper whole-system clean) - so you can compare prices fairly. But value is more than price: also weigh each contractor's credentials (proper insurance and recognised accreditation), their proof of work (do they provide before-and-after photographs and a TR19 Grease certificate?), and their reputation (references, reviews, track record).
So the comparison becomes: among quotes for the same proper job, which contractor offers the best combination of a fair price and the credentials, proof and reputation you want? This may not be the lowest headline - a slightly higher price from a properly insured, accredited, proven and reputable contractor can be better value than a rock-bottom one with weaker credentials. But because the scope is equalised, you're now choosing on genuine value for the same work, not being misled by a cheap number that does less. So then compare on value - price, credentials, proof and reputation - among like-for-like quotes. That's how to compare quotes without comparing apples to oranges: equalise the job, then choose the best value. So compare on value once the quotes are like-for-like. So price, credentials, proof and reputation. This is general commentary on comparing quotes.
Questions
Make them like-for-like first - same brief, same defined scope, standard and records - then compare on value, not just the lowest price. Quotes only compare fairly if they're for the same job, and they often aren't (a cheap partial clean versus a proper whole-system one). So to compare fairly: give each contractor the same brief (your cooking, system, access) and let each survey the system; require each quote to cover the same defined scope (the whole system - canopy, filters, ductwork, fan), the same standard (TR19 Grease), and the same records (report, photographs, certificate); and check each returned quote really matches this (a cheap one may quietly cover less). Once the quotes are for the same job, compare on value - the price for the same proper clean, plus credentials, proof and reputation - rather than taking the lowest headline. So make them comparable, then compare on value. So equalise the job, then compare value. This is general commentary.
Because a cheaper quote often covers a smaller job (doing less - excluding the ductwork or fan), so it's not comparable to a proper one; the cheapest can be a partial clean that leaves the fire risk. Extraction cleaning quotes vary in scope - one for the whole system, another only the visible parts - and their prices reflect these different jobs. So a lower price usually means a smaller job, not better value. Picking the cheapest without checking what it covers risks buying a partial clean (canopy and filters only) that leaves the hidden ductwork and fan grease-laden - the real fire risk untouched - while you think you got a bargain. So the cheapest headline can be the worst value. Instead, make the quotes like-for-like (same defined scope) and compare on value among proper offers. So don't pick the cheapest blind - a cheap quote may do less and leave the fire risk. So the cheapest may cover less. This is general commentary.
Give each contractor the same brief and let each survey the system, and require each quote to cover the same scope (whole system), standard (TR19 Grease) and records - so they're all pricing the same defined job. Two steps make quotes comparable. First, the same input: give each contractor the same information about your cooking, system and access, and let each survey or see the system - so they're all quoting for the same actual system, understood the same way. Second, the same specification: state explicitly that you want each quote to cover the whole system (canopy, filters, ductwork, fan), cleaned to TR19 Grease, with the report, photographs and certificate. Then check each returned quote against this. Once each quote is for the same defined job, they're like-for-like, and their prices are genuinely comparable. So make them like-for-like by equalising the brief and defining a common scope, standard and records. So same brief, same defined scope. This is general commentary.
That it covers the whole system (canopy, filters, ductwork, fan), to TR19 Grease, with the report, photographs and certificate, and access included - not a partial clean with extras added later. Read each quote against the defined scope, checking: does it cover the whole system, including the hidden ductwork and fan (not just the visible canopy and filters)? Is it cleaned to the TR19 Grease standard (not a vague tidy)? Does it include the records - report, before-and-after photographs (of the hidden parts), certificate? Is the access to reach the ductwork and fan included, not charged as an extra? Any quote that excludes parts, leaves out the records or access, or cleans to a lesser standard isn't like-for-like with a proper one - so either get it re-quoted for the full scope or add the cost of the gaps. Checking this ensures the quotes really are comparable. So check the scope, standard, records and access in each quote. So the whole system, standard, records and access. This is general commentary.
It means comparing like-for-like quotes on the whole package - the price for the same proper clean, plus the contractor's credentials, proof of work and reputation - not just the lowest number. Once the quotes are for the same defined job, the price is comparable, but value is more than price. Comparing on value means weighing, among quotes for the same proper whole-system clean: the price (now genuinely comparable); the contractor's credentials (proper insurance, recognised accreditation); their proof of work (do they provide before-and-after photographs and a TR19 Grease certificate?); and their reputation (references, reviews, track record). The best value is the best combination of these - which may not be the lowest headline (a slightly higher price from a well-credentialed, proven contractor can be better value than a rock-bottom one). So comparing on value is choosing the best overall offer for the same job, not just the cheapest. So it's weighing price, credentials, proof and reputation together. This is general commentary.
That's telling - a contractor reluctant to quote for the whole system to standard with records may not do proper whole-system cleans; it's a reason for caution, and it keeps them out of a like-for-like comparison. When you define the scope (the whole system, to TR19 Grease, with records) and ask each contractor to quote for it, a contractor who won't or can't quote for the full scope is revealing something: they may not do proper whole-system cleans, or may prefer to sell a cheaper partial clean. Either way, their quote isn't for the same job, so it's not comparable to the proper ones - and their reluctance is a caution about using them at all. So take it as useful information: it flushes out contractors who don't do the full job, and keeps your comparison to those who do (which is the point of defining the scope). So a contractor who won't quote the full scope is a red flag, and outside the fair comparison. So it's a red flag; exclude them. This is general commentary.
We quote the whole system cleaned to TR19 Grease with the records, clearly scoped - so our quote is easy to compare like-for-like against others, on value rather than a cheap headline that quietly does less. Ask us for a clearly-scoped whole-system quote. This is general commentary on comparing quotes.
