As I did when we announced our last set of results, some of you may find it interesting to compare imutual's accounts with those of the top two "100% cashback sites"
The phrase "100% cashback" is obviously slightly misleading (even in our own case), as companies need to use some of the revenues they receive to bear the costs of running the sites. But I think the scale of these overheads makes an interesting comparison and prompts the question: "If the other sites had a member-owned model like imutual, could they justify quite such significant overheads to their members?"
As you can see, over the last few years there has been a combined difference of over £40m between the income they received and cashback earned by members. Quidco's annual overheads have now reached over £8m, compared with £65k for imutual. I'm not suggesting that imutual could run as large a company as quidco and keep its costs to £65000

Thoughts, anyone?