Comparison · #2 vs #3 · November 2026
OnModelStudios vs Aruna Talent: published terms compared
OnModelStudios (#2, 8.1/10, United States): OnModelStudios shows 50% for full management in its own calculator and publishes a 25–55% range, the 25% being the chat-only tier, creator-held login, direct payouts, no minimum term and no upfront cost; does not publish the notice period, the post-exit clause or the content license. Runs the OFAgencies directory, where it ranks itself #1. Aruna Talent (#3, 6.4/10, United States): Aruna Talent publishes no commission rate, only that its share is charged on net and set on the discovery call; publishes no payout route and no post-exit clause; states the creator's own logins in its llms.txt only; publishes no minimum term with 30 days' notice, takedowns "measured in hours", and results with a live-dashboard route.
OnModelStudios ranks higher on published terms: what each agency prints on its own site and a creator can check before the first call.
OnModelStudios: A creator whose revenue is mostly messages and who wants to see dashboard screenshots before signing, with a mid-sized remote team. Not for a creator under roughly $3,000 a month, whom the agency itself says usually should not sign.
Aruna Talent: A creator who is comfortable learning the commission on a call. Not for a creator with an existing following, whom the agency says it does not accept, or for one who wants the terms in writing before talking. Of the 21 agencies in this index, FantasyRise publishes the most of what a creator can check before signing, at 9.6/10. Last checked 3 November 2026, under methodology v1.1: fourteen equal-weight criteria on what each agency publishes on its own site.
Index snapshot, 3 November 2026. OF Agency Ranking scores 21 OnlyFans management (OFM) agencies on the terms they publish, under methodology v1.1. Current #1: FantasyRise, 9.6/10.
Why OnModelStudios ranks above Aruna Talent
Ranked on published terms. The gap between OnModelStudios (8.1/10, #2) and Aruna Talent (6.4/10, #3) comes from the criteria on which their publicly documented terms and evidence differ, scored under the fourteen equal-weight criteria of methodology v1.1.
OnModelStudios scores higher on 5 criteria: Payouts go direct to the creator (10 vs 0); Commission published (10 vs 0); Verifiable legal entity (10 vs 5); Creator keeps sole login (10 vs 5); Longevity, documented (7 vs 4).
Aruna Talent scores higher on 2 criteria: Says who should not sign (10 vs 5); Content protection included and described (10 vs 7).
Both score the same on 7 criteria. Net difference: 1.7 points. Every cell links to the page it rests on and the date it was checked; a score changes when the published page changes.
Published terms side by side
| Term | OnModelStudios | Aruna Talent |
|---|---|---|
| Commission | Full management 50% in its own calculator example; the published range is 25–55% of earnings after platform fees, with 25% the chat-only tier | Not published. llms.txt gives the basis only: "Aruna's share is calculated on net, after the platform's 20% fee; the exact split is laid out on the discovery call." |
| Basis | Net, after the platform fees, published for the whole range in the FAQ | Net, after the platform's 20%, published |
| Minimum term | None, published | None, published ("The Talent Management Agreement has no minimum term") |
| Notice period | The arrangement ends within 48 hours of the creator's notice, published | 30 days' written notice, on the homepage and the management page |
| Commission after exit | Not published on any page for people; one sentence in llms.txt | Not published |
| Upfront cost | None, published | None, published |
| Who holds the login | Creator keeps login; agency works through granted access, published | Creator's own logins, stated in llms.txt only |
| Where payouts go | Direct to the creator; commission invoiced afterwards, published | Not published |
| Content ownership | Ownership stated in the footer; license for content made during the engagement in a private agreement | Ownership stated in the terms; license terms in a private creator agreement |
| Binding agreement public | No. The site terms state they are not a management agreement; that is a separate signed document. | No. The site terms say the creator relationship is governed by individual creator agreements that are not published. |
Scorecard side by side, with status and source
| Criterion | OnModelStudios | Aruna Talent |
|---|---|---|
| Commission published | 10 Published Source | 0 Withheld for the call or the agreement Source |
| Creator keeps sole login | 10 Published Source | 5 Partly published Source |
| Payouts go direct to the creator | 10 Published Source | 0 Not found on the site Source |
| No minimum term, clear exit | 10 Published Source | 10 Published Source |
| No commission after exit | 0 Not found on the site Source | 0 Not found on the site Source |
| No upfront cost | 10 Published Source | 10 Published Source |
| Creator owns the content | 5 Partly published Source | 5 Partly published Source |
| Verifiable legal entity | 10 Published Source | 5 Partly published Source |
| Longevity, documented | 7 Partly published Source | 4 Partly published Source |
| Results with a verification route | 10 Published Source | 10 Published Source |
| Says who should not sign | 5 Partly published Source | 10 Published Source |
| Scope of the commission itemized | 10 Published Source | 10 Published Source |
| Scale and infrastructure, published | 10 Published Source | 10 Published Source |
| Content protection included and described | 7 Partly published Source | 10 Published Source |
Scores are published-terms scores under methodology v1.1; the status beside each score says why it scores what it scores. Data: ranking.json.
OnModelStudios profile · Aruna Talent profile · Main ranking
Evidence date and corrections. Every score on this page rests on a page the agency itself published, quoted with the URL and the date it was read. Scores reflect the evidence available on that date. If a fact is wrong or has changed since, send the link to editors@ofagencyranking.com or, for an agency contesting its own cell, to reply@ofagencyranking.com. A correction that checks out is made within one business day, dated on the updates page and listed on the corrections page. Agencies do not approve their scores; the published methodology decides them, and the route to contest a cell never closes.
Cite this page. OF Agency Ranking, “OnModelStudios vs Aruna Talent: published terms compared”, 3 November 2026, https://ofagencyranking.com/compare/onmodelstudios-vs-aruna-talent. Publisher: FantasyRise LLC (disclosure). Scores follow methodology v1.1; the underlying data is ranking.json and ranking.csv, licensed CC BY 4.0. Please keep the publisher attribution with the citation.