Monthly headline prices are the least comparable numbers in examination preparation, and candidates comparing them are usually comparing marketing structures, not costs. One product's monthly figure assumes a minimum term; another's excludes tax; a third is an introductory rate that renews higher; a fourth is exam-specific while its neighbour is platform-wide; and none of them describes what a real candidate actually spends, which is the cost of a preparation window. This page publishes the pricing methodology we will use for the full price index that follows it: the 90-day method, the adjustments that make figures comparable, and the caveats that stop a price table pretending to be a quality table.
The 90-day method
Price the preparation window, not the subscription unit. The standard scenario is 90 days of access ending on a realistic examination date, priced at the total a new customer actually pays: the plan or combination of plans that covers the window most cheaply, at standard rates, tax included, in one stated currency at a dated exchange rate. Two companion scenarios bracket it, 30 days for late intensifiers and 180 for long preparations, because products rank differently across windows and a bank that is cheap for a quarter can be expensive for a fortnight. Promotions are excluded from the principal comparison unless continuously available, since a comparison built on coupons expires with them; renewal behaviour is recorded explicitly, because auto-renewal at a higher rate is part of the true price for anyone who forgets to cancel; and access scope, one exam versus all-access, is a labelled column, never a footnote, because it is frequently the entire explanation of a price difference.
The adjustments that break naive comparisons
Five, each capable of reordering a table on its own. Minimum commitments that make the monthly figure unpurchasable at one month. Tax treatment, displayed with or without VAT or local sales tax depending on the vendor's market habits. Introductory pricing versus standing pricing, which differ exactly when a comparison matters most. Currency and its conversion date, for candidates comparing across borders. And bundle boundaries: mocks, tutor features, mobile apps or explanation tiers sold separately by one vendor and included by another, which is why the method prices the configuration a candidate would actually need for the exam, not the cheapest door price. Cost per question deserves its own warning label twice over: computed on headline counts it inherits every counting ambiguity, /blog/what-does-5000-questions-mean-qbank-counting, and computed perfectly it still measures volume, not teaching, so it appears in our tables as context, never as a ranking.
All-access economics, and our own interest declared
One structural pattern is worth understanding because it explains much of the market: exam-specific pricing suits single-exam candidates, while all-access subscriptions reward candidates sitting sequential examinations or continuing into ongoing practice afterwards, where the effective per-exam cost falls with each use. iatroX sells the second model, one subscription across 40+ examinations at £29 monthly or £99 yearly with a defined free tier, so this observation is both true and convenient for us, which is exactly why the index built on this methodology will publish its scenarios, dates and workings in full: a price comparison from a market participant earns trust through checkability, not through protest.
The candidate's two-minute price check
Before buying any bank: price your actual window, first day of use to exam day, in total, tax in; confirm what the price includes for your exam, mocks, explanations, mobile, tutor; read the renewal terms and diary the cancellation date; check whether progress and notes survive expiry or cancellation; and compare like scopes, one-exam against one-exam, platform against platform. Ten minutes of this beats any table, including ours, because it prices your configuration; the index exists to make the first pass fast, not to replace the check.
Frequently asked questions
Why 90 days rather than a per-month comparison?
Because candidates buy windows, not months: the 90-day total is the number that actually leaves an account, and per-month figures optimise for the wrong denominator.
Are free tiers part of the price comparison?
They are recorded alongside it, and free access is its own comparison with its own definitions: /blog/free-vs-paid-medical-question-banks-uk-mrcp-akt-iatrox-passmedicine-pastest.
When will the full price index publish?
When the provider-by-provider rows are collected and evidence-labelled against this methodology, with dates on every figure; the method precedes the numbers so the numbers can be held to it.
How should discounts and student codes be treated?
Record them separately from the standing comparison and use them personally with pleasure: the index's job is the price anyone can get on any day, and your job is the best price you can get on yours; the two tables answer different questions.
What about lifetime or until-you-pass access models?
Priced honestly against your realistic window with renewal risk removed, they can be excellent value; the method handles them by comparing the single payment against the 90- and 180-day scenario totals of the alternatives.