Most retailers landing on this page are already using one of the approaches below, or evaluating a direct competitor. The comparison table shows feature-by-feature differences. The sections below explain where each approach genuinely wins, and where Forwarding fits in relation.
How the approaches compare
Compare Forwarding to:
Criterion
Doing nothing
Forwarding
Warehouse roundtrip eliminated
No
Returns still go to warehouse
Yes
Returns go directly from sender to next buyer
Algorithm independently validated before product
N/A
No matching algorithm involved
Yes
Published in Omega 128 (Elsevier, 2024); submitted 2023, the same September the company was founded, before peer review concluded.
Repackaging eliminated
No
Items repackaged at warehouse
Yes
Original packaging reused: no repackaging
Item depreciation prevented
No
Item sits in warehouse, losing value
Yes
Item sold immediately, before depreciation begins
Full price or controlled discount maintained
Partial
Re-listed at original price after warehouse handling
Yes
Sold at optimised discount, typically 5–15% off
CO₂ savings measurable and real
No
No reduction; standard logistics
Yes
310g CO₂ saved per Forward: ISO standard, per transaction
Impact claim can be substantiated
N/A
No claim made
Yes
ISO-standard per-transaction data; auditable for CSRD
Consumer-facing experience unchanged
Yes
Standard return, familiar experience
Yes
Return option appears inside existing return flow
No IT project required
Yes
No change needed
Yes
Plugin install for supported platforms; live in a week
Revenue retained by retailer
Partial
Revenue recovered at discounted re-list price minus handling cost
Yes
Discount price minus IGF fee: net positive vs warehouse
Scales without logistics investment
No
Scales with warehouse capacity
Yes
No logistics assets; scales purely on software
Platform coverage
N/A
No platform involvement
Shopify, Magento, BigCommerce, Salesforce CC, Returnless, Bleckmann, custom API
Native plugins for the platforms European fashion retailers actually use, plus REST API and integrations with Returnless and Bleckmann
Tap a cell to read the comparison note. Forwarding column is highlighted.
The honest case for each approach
Doing nothing: conventional warehouse returns
Best forBusinesses where return handling is already optimised and volumes are low
Where it works
No change to existing systems or processes
Familiar, expected consumer experience
Works for all product categories including damaged items
Where it falls short
Full cost of return logistics, handling, repackaging, and re-fulfilment
Item depreciates in the warehouse
18% of returned items written off entirely
No CO₂ reduction; full transport roundtrip continues
Increasing regulatory pressure as CSRD and GCD tighten
How Forwarding relates to this approach
Forwarding sits on top of your conventional return process; it does not replace it. Items that cannot be Forwarded (damaged, no match found, consumer doesn't ship in time) go through the conventional process automatically. You keep everything that works today and add Forwarding for the 30–40% of returns where it can.
Direct competitors: Frate.co, Toern
Best forBusinesses specifically evaluating peer-to-peer return forwarding solutions
Where it works
Both validate that the market exists and the concept works
Frate.co live at 20+ companies (primarily North American market, founded 2021, $4M raised)
Toern focused on optimised discount, API-first approach
Where it falls short
Frate.co does not integrate with third-party return portals; pushes its own portal
Toern is Shopify-only and Germany-only at present
Both built products and then looked for validation; neither has published research on their algorithm
Neither has the EU regulatory compliance framing increasingly important for European retailers
How Forwarding relates to this approach
Frate.co is live at 20+ companies (primarily North American market, founded 2021, $4M raised). IGF is live at Kuyichi since February 2025, with Oilily, Studio Anneloes, and ANWB onboarding, and having won eBay's pitching contest in March 2026 (pilot scoping in progress): a more concentrated, EU-focused footprint at an earlier stage, with marketplace-scale validation in motion.
Frate.co and Toern built products and looked for validation. IGF started with validation and built the product: our co-founder Carl van Heijst submitted the research to Omega (Elsevier) in 2023 and founded the company the same September, before peer review had concluded. The paper was published in Omega 128 the following year. This is the single clearest difference between us and our direct competitors, and it's one they cannot close without going back to academia. The other differences follow: integration philosophy (we work with your existing stack, not alongside it), geographic focus (we are EU-first), and regulatory positioning (we actively address CSRD, GCD, and PPWR).
Pre-loved / own resale section
Best forBrands with strong loyalty, high-end products, and resources to invest in a dedicated resale experience
Where it works
Resale revenue retained entirely within the brand
Strengthens brand sustainability positioning
Premium pricing possible on brand-authenticated pre-loved items
Successful examples: Patagonia, Eileen Fisher, several luxury brands
Where it falls short
Significant IT, content, and operational investment required
Warehouse handling remains; depreciation and handling costs unavoidable
Separate consumer journey, different from the main buying flow
Only works at scale; low-volume brands rarely generate enough pre-loved inventory
How Forwarding relates to this approach
Pre-loved sections and Forwarding are not mutually exclusive. Forwarding handles the fast, automated end of returns: items that can be matched immediately. A pre-loved section handles curated, higher-value items that benefit from editorial treatment. They serve different parts of the returns mix.
Return portal only (Returnless, Narvar, Returnista)
Best forBusinesses streamlining the consumer return experience and reducing customer-support load
Where it works
Significant improvement to the consumer return experience
Fewer customer-support tickets related to returns
Analytics on return reasons and patterns
Native carrier integrations for label generation
Where it falls short
No reduction in items going to the warehouse
Repackaging and handling costs unchanged
Item depreciation continues
No CO₂ saving; transport roundtrip unchanged
No financial saving on the cost of the return itself
How Forwarding relates to this approach
We integrate inside return portals; we are not a replacement for them. Returnless and Bleckmann are live integrations. If you already use a return portal, Forwarding adds a Forward option inside your existing consumer flow. You get the portal's experience improvements and Forwarding's cost and CO₂ savings on top.
Liquidation / off-price channels
Best forClearing large volumes of end-of-season or heavily discounted items quickly
Where it works
Fast clearance of excess inventory
No IT integration required
Scales with liquidator relationships
Items removed from your warehouse quickly
Where it falls short
Recovery typically 10–40% of original item value
No control over where or how items are sold
Frequent grey-market resale or export to global south
No consumer relationship; original buyer disconnected from outcome
No measurable CO₂ reduction; significant logistics remain
How Forwarding relates to this approach
Liquidation is the worst-case outcome for returned items, used when no better option exists. Forwarding prevents items from reaching the liquidation stage by matching them with new buyers immediately, at a controlled discount, within your own webshop.
When Forwarding is not the right fit
Forwarding is not right for every business or every return type. Here is when we would tell you not to start a pilot.
Your return volume is under 50 returns per month
Below this threshold, the data from a pilot is too thin to be meaningful and the per-Forward economics, while positive, do not generate a material absolute saving. Come back when volume grows.
Your product category is heavily size-dependent with very high return rates
Categories like swimwear, intimate apparel, or highly size-specific items have matching complexity that reduces Forward rates. Fashion basics, footwear, and accessories perform best. Talk to us about your specific category before starting.
Your consumers are not online-native or are unfamiliar with peer-to-peer transactions
Forwarding adoption correlates with consumer comfort with peer-to-peer platforms like Vinted. If your consumer base skews older or is unfamiliar with this model, adoption may be lower than average. We can discuss how to frame the option for your specific audience.
You need a guaranteed outcome before going live
We cannot guarantee a specific adoption rate before going live; it depends on your consumers, your product mix, and your return flow presentation. If you need a guaranteed ROI as a condition of trying, a pilot is not possible. If you are willing to run 90 days to find out, the economics almost always work.
If any of these apply to you, talk to us first → We will tell you honestly whether a pilot makes sense.
You've compared. Now what?
If Forwarding looks like the right fit, the fastest way to confirm is live data from your own webshop. 90 days, monthly contract, first Forward pays for the integration.
