Advisers have criticised Unbiased's new pricing structure which could see them shelling out more than £3,000 a month.
Unbiased's new monthly fees for financial advisers are based on how many locations their services would be exposed to.
The cheapest option now is £302 a month for your profile to be promoted to around five locations in the country while the most expensive of the three packages would set you back £3,727 a month.
The company's pricing for mortgage advisers and accountants remains priced per profile, starting from £35.
Karen Barrett, founder and chief executive of Unbiased defended the changes saying the products are “transparently priced for all advisers”.
However, FTAdviser readers have been strong in their criticism of the changes with many saying they have cancelled their Unbiased subscriptions.
One wrote: “It is unconscionable that the service is promoted by the majority of companies and providers as Unbiased, it is a gross misrepresentation and has not been consumer friendly let alone met the original objectives set out by IFA Promotions Ltd for far too long.
“Consumers employing this service are no better off than listening to influencers on social media, they have absolutely no idea what they are going to get, other than it is free.”
While another said: “Totally agree. The monthly subscription fee has increased along with the per lead costs, and to be honest the quality leaves a lot to be desired. The majority of purchased leads I've made have been of poor quality and mostly not able to establish contact.”
One adviser went as far to leave the service saying: "We have just cancelled our Unbiased subscription which is a shame having been with IFAP since inception. The way they have evolved and quality of leads and pricing is no longer attractive."
Others in the field were also quick to add their criticisms to the changes from Unbiased.
Justin Moy, manager at EHF Mortgages compared it to independent estate agents being charged more than larger firms to use listing websites.
He said: "How can a firm called 'Unbiased' be so biased towards larger corporates when they should be representing the smaller independent firms who actually need their support?"
While Daniel Wiltshire from Wiltshire Wealth said he thought there should be more checks on the services.
He said: "I'm astounded that these paid-for lead generation websites haven't come under more scrutiny. Consumers certainly don't understand how they work and that they're inherently biased toward the firms that pay their hefty subscriptions."
Another adviser said they had left Unbiased because of the way it was operated.
Sandra Feuell, director at Feuell4Life, said: "I specialise in one financial services product so I got no leads as I was up against financial advisers who were providing advice across all areas and taking leads for everything.
"I am a specialist in my field, which is great for the consumer. It would be fairer for consumers if firms pay a separate subscription cost for each area of advice that they wish to recommend. That way, if they do not specialise in a financial product, they are less likely to want to pay for these leads."
