One stager wants cash up front, the other wants 30% more at closing

I'm getting a house I've held a long time ready to list, and the two proposals I have in hand are structured completely differently.

First one: 1,100 design and install, 850 a month, first month included, payable on install. Total exposure to me is about 3,650 if it sits three months.

Second one: nothing due at install, whole fee settled out of the closing proceeds, and the number is written as 4,700 flat regardless of how long it takes, with a clause that if the house doesn't close within six months the full amount comes due anyway. So roughly 30% more than the first quote at my expected timeline, less if the sale drags.

I keep going back and forth on which one is the honest deal. The deferred version hands the market risk to the stager and prices it, which is what a rate is supposed to do. It also means the stager is carrying my furniture on my floor with no cash from me, and if they're doing that for a dozen houses at once I'm relying on a business I can't see the balance sheet of. The up front version costs less and gives me a clean number, and it puts every extra month of a slow market straight onto me.

Anyone who has been on either side of this, I want to know which structure actually holds up when the sale takes longer than everyone hoped. I'll have a lawyer look at whatever I sign, that part I know.