Rate Comparison: Asset Based Broker vs Non Asset Based Broker

To all the Owner Operators out there, from your experience, when it comes to comparing rates from an "asset based" broker (company owns the equipment, and employs company-drivers), to those of a "non asset based" broker (company doesn't own equipment, and employs Owner Operators; example, Arrive Logistics), typically what is the trend? Are the rates typically higher or lower?

 

I don't think so. My definition of carrier, is the party who actually owns the equipment that the freight is moving on. Therefore, a non asset based carrier can't exist, because they don't own any equipment. In other words, while a broker can also be the carrier (asset based), a broker can also just be a broker (non asset based).

BUT, as you have forced me to think about this question more, I now realize that anybody who drives for an asset based carrier would have to be a company driver, as they would be driving company owned equipment, hence the "asset based". As such, they would not have access to load rates.

So, while I would still like to know how rates compare when it comes to asset based vs non asset based, I likely will not get an answer. The only person that would know would be somebody that worked specifically as a broker for an asset based broker, while also having had worked with a non asset based broker either as a broker or an OO. Likely, hard to find.

I started this thread, because I was curious to know if asset based brokers would typically be able to charge customers higher rates due to the special value that they have to offer, in the form of using their own equipment and drivers. If I was a customer, I would be more comfortable knowing and controlling who exactly is moving my property. That is something that only an asset based broker can offer. Whereas, a non asset based broker has to rely on a "network" of carriers; essentially equipment owned and operated by strangers.

I was also curious to see, if asset based brokers were charging more than non asset based brokers, since they actually own the equipment being used, and have to cover those associated expenses.

Thanks, you just killed this thread. LOL.

 

Ok. Lets clarify. Lets forget about the terms I was using. Lets start over.

There are carriers, who own their own equipment, and who are dealing directly with customers.
There are brokers, who do not own their own equipment, and who serve as an intermediary between carriers and customers.

Is that correct?

What had thrown me off, was reading an article, in which the founders of Arrive Logistics, referred to themselves as: "Today they’re among the top 40 non-asset-based freight brokerages in the country" (Arrive Logistics Achieves 100% Revenue Growth in 2016 - Arrive Logistics). By using the term "non asset based freight brokerage", they imply that the term "asset based freight brokerage" exists. Neither term is correct.

They are speaking incorrectly, as the only 2 terms that are correct, are brokers and carriers. And they, Arrive, are simply a broker. They do not own any equipment, so they are not a carrier. Just a broker. None of this "non asset based freight brokerage" BS.

How the hell a pair of 25 year olds back in 2013, who probably had no CDL or experience in logistics, manage to pull something as big as Arrive Logistics off, while years later, still ignorantly getting the industry terminology wrong, is FUBAR. If you can explain that one to me, that would be appreciated.