AirHelp vs Compensair vs ClaimCompass: EU261 Compared
Compare AirHelp, Compensair, and ClaimCompass on EU261 fees and timelines — then see how Gaduin event contracts work as a pre-flight alternative.
When a flight lands three hours late, Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 entitles most EU-route passengers to fixed statutory compensation of between €250 and €600. The challenge is collecting it. Airlines rarely volunteer payment, which is why a category of specialist services — AirHelp, Compensair, and ClaimCompass among them — exists to file, negotiate, and litigate on your behalf.
This guide compares all three on the dimensions that matter: fee structure, processing time, and scope. It then introduces event contracts on Gaduin as a structurally different instrument — one that resolves before the flight lands, not months after.
EU261 in Plain Numbers: Your Statutory Entitlement
Under Regulation (EC) No 261/2004, passengers on qualifying flights have a statutory right to fixed compensation when a flight arrives at the destination more than three hours late. The European Court of Justice established this three-hour arrival standard in the joined cases Sturgeon v Condor (C‑402/07) and Nelson v Lufthansa (C‑581/10), extending it equally to delays and to cancellations where re-routing delivers you late.
Compensation is set by distance, not by fare class or airline:
| Flight distance | Fixed compensation |
|---|---|
| 1,500 km or less | €250 |
| 1,501–3,500 km, or intra-EU above 1,500 km | €400 |
| Over 3,500 km (non-intra-EU) | €600 |
The regulation also covers denied boarding due to overbooking and cancellations notified fewer than 14 days before departure. Coverage requires either a departure from an EU airport, or a departure from a non-EU airport to an EU airport operated by an EU-based carrier.
Exceptions exist. Airlines are released from compensation obligations when disruption results from extraordinary circumstances — events they could not have avoided even with all reasonable measures taken. Staff strikes internal to the carrier typically do not qualify as extraordinary circumstances and do not extinguish the right to compensation; external factors such as air traffic control actions may. Our EU261 Extraordinary Circumstances Guide covers the legal framework and key ECJ cases. The specific treatment of airline strikes is addressed in our Airline Strike & EU261 Compensation article.
For a complete walk-through of passenger rights under the regulation, see Your EU261 Rights Explained.
How AirHelp, Compensair, and ClaimCompass Work
All three services operate on the same structural model: you assign your EU261 entitlement to them; they handle all airline correspondence, documentation, and legal escalation; you pay a percentage of successful compensation only — nothing upfront, nothing if the outcome is unsuccessful.
AirHelp is the largest operator in this segment. Founded in 2013, the platform has processed compensation requests for millions of passengers across Europe and beyond. It includes a flight-monitoring feature that can scan a linked email inbox and surface past eligible flights automatically. AirHelp manages all airline communications and, where the airline refuses without legal cause, initiates court proceedings through its legal network.
Compensair focuses on a streamlined portal experience. Beyond EU261, it covers Turkish Air Passenger Rights and Canadian Air Passenger Protection Regulations, giving it broader geographic scope than its competitors on this list.
ClaimCompass targets the segment of clearly eligible, uncomplicated EU261 cases. Their workflow is designed to minimise passenger input — you submit flight details, they handle the rest.
None of the three requires you to interact with the airline directly. That is the core value proposition: passengers who find the process of chasing airlines unfamiliar or time-consuming get a specialist to do it on commission.
Fee Structures: What Each Service Costs on a Successful Outcome
Fees diverge significantly between the three, particularly when legal action becomes necessary.
| Service | Standard fee | With legal escalation |
|---|---|---|
| AirHelp | 35% | up to 50% |
| Compensair | 30% | up to 40% |
| ClaimCompass | 35% | up to 50% |
Source: fee structures as published on provider websites and reviewed by independent flight compensation comparison services including themilesmarket.com and fitcationhq.com, accessed June 2026.
On a €600 long-haul entitlement, the impact is concrete:
| Service | Standard net to passenger | Litigated net to passenger |
|---|---|---|
| AirHelp | €390 | €300 |
| Compensair | €420 | €360 |
| ClaimCompass | €390 | €300 |
Compensair’s lower base fee of 30% gives it a clear edge for uncomplicated, direct-settlement cases. All three add a litigation surcharge when the airline refuses to settle without court proceedings — which happens more frequently than upfront service descriptions suggest.
An alternative worth noting for passengers with a clear-cut case: filing directly with the airline, or through a national enforcement body (the CAA in the UK, DGAC in France, Luftfahrt-Bundesamt in Germany), costs nothing and returns the full statutory sum without commission.
Speed and Success: What to Expect on the Timeline
Processing time is the most variable factor across all three services.
Direct-settlement cases — where the airline acknowledges the entitlement and pays without challenge — typically resolve in four to twelve weeks with any of the three services, per third-party comparison reviews.
Cases requiring legal escalation extend the timeline substantially. Contested cases at uncooperative airlines regularly run six months to over a year, sometimes longer if appeals are involved. ClaimCompass targets a timeline of a few months as typical for most of their cases. AirHelp documentation references comparable timeframes for straightforward, uncontested submissions.
On success rates: all three services pre-screen submissions and decline cases where the legal basis is weak — extraordinary circumstances, routes outside regulation scope, delays below the three-hour threshold. AirHelp reports a high success rate on cases that reach the legal stage, a figure that reflects case selection as much as legal outcome. Cases that pass initial screening are strong candidates by design.
AirHelp’s own research indicates that a large share of passengers eligible for EU261 compensation never submit any request — a figure that illustrates both the size of the uncollected statutory pot and the friction involved in pursuing airlines independently.
Where the Post-Flight Model Has Structural Limits
The post-flight service model functions well within its design. It has structural constraints that are worth understanding before you plan around it.
Retrospective by nature. All three services operate after disruption has already occurred. The statutory compensation they recover does not cover consequential costs — missed connections on separately booked tickets, unplanned accommodation, lost revenue from disrupted business travel. EU261 sets fixed statutory sums that are independent of actual losses incurred.
No certainty on timing. A settlement might arrive in four weeks or eighteen months. That range makes compensation receipts unsuitable as a planning assumption. If you are managing cash-flow exposure around travel disruption, an uncertain recovery timeline does not help.
Coverage boundaries. The regulation does not cover all routes or all carriers. Delays below three hours are outside scope entirely. Extraordinary circumstances — if substantiated — extinguish the right to compensation for qualifying events. A service cannot recover compensation the regulation does not provide.
Commission reduces net recovery. Particularly for long-haul routes where litigation is more common, the effective net recovery after a 50% combined fee can reach €300 on a €600 entitlement. That is better than nothing, but below the regulatory ceiling that self-filing would return.
These are not criticisms of the services — they operate as intended. They are observations about where the tool’s limits sit.
A Different Instrument: Event Contracts on Gaduin
Gaduin hosts transport event contracts — market positions that settle against objectively verified flight outcomes. Where a post-flight service operates after disruption and depends on airline cooperation, an event contract on Gaduin operates before departure and settles against flight data.
Before your flight, you open a position in the relevant event contract. The contract defines an outcome threshold — on time, delayed past a specified interval, or cancelled. If the flight outcome matches your position at settlement, the contract resolves in USDT through Gaduin’s peer-to-pool market mechanics. Settlement is automatic, driven by live aviation data feeds, not by an airline’s decision to acknowledge liability.
The structural differences from a post-flight service:
| Post-flight service (AirHelp / Compensair / ClaimCompass) | Gaduin event contract | |
|---|---|---|
| Timing | Post-flight | Pre-flight |
| Settlement trigger | Airline agreement or court order | Oracle-verified flight data |
| Settlement timeline | Weeks to over a year | Hours after flight event |
| Cost | 30–50% of statutory compensation | Market spread at time of trade |
| Outcome basis | Regulatory entitlement (EU261) | Contractual market position |
| Currency | EUR / fiat bank transfer | USDT |
| Scope | EU261-qualifying flights | Any listed transport contract |
Gaduin is not a post-flight recovery service, a legal representative, or an insurance product. It is a transport event contract exchange. Opening a position does not entitle you to any fixed statutory compensation — settlement reflects contractual market terms, not regulatory floors. Market prices reflect the probability distribution of outcomes as assessed by market participants at the time of the trade.
Crucially, using Gaduin before a flight does not extinguish EU261 rights. If a qualifying delay occurs, a passenger can still pursue statutory recovery through any of the three services above. The event contract settles independently, under separate contractual terms. The two instruments are complementary — they operate on different timelines against different legal and contractual frameworks.
For the full mechanics of flight delay event contracts, see Hedge Your Flight Delay: Event Contracts That Pay When Airlines Do Not.
This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial, legal, or investment advice. Past settlement outcomes on event contracts do not guarantee future results.
Which Approach Fits Which Situation?
AirHelp, Compensair, and ClaimCompass make sense when:
- A qualifying delay or cancellation has already occurred on an EU261-eligible route
- The delay at arrival met the three-hour threshold established in Sturgeon (C‑402/07)
- You prefer not to deal with the airline directly
- The statutory sum justifies the commission, particularly on longer-haul routes where the €600 ceiling applies
Between the three, Compensair’s lower base fee of 30% (versus 35% for AirHelp and ClaimCompass) makes it the better-value option for direct-settlement cases on the routes it covers. AirHelp’s automation and inbox-scanning feature suits travellers who want a hands-off approach and may have past eligible flights unsubmitted. ClaimCompass is a functional option for clear-cut EU-route submissions.
Gaduin event contracts serve a structurally different function:
- You want to open a market position on a flight’s delay outcome before departure
- You need resolution on a defined contractual timeline, not an uncertain recovery process
- The route or circumstances fall outside EU261’s scope, or you want a position that resolves independently of airline cooperation
The two approaches are not in competition. A passenger can hold an event contract position on Gaduin before departure and pursue EU261 statutory recovery through a post-flight service if a qualifying delay occurs. Each operates under different frameworks, at different points in the travel timeline, resolving through different mechanisms. Whether to use one, the other, or both is a decision based on individual travel risk profile and timeline preferences — not a binary choice between them.