Abstract Mutualistic interactions are biological markets in which different species exchange commodities to mutual benefit. Mutualisms are, however, susceptible to exploitation, with some individuals taking without reciprocating. While it is generally assumed that exploiters will inflict fitness costs, evidence for such costs is mixed and difficult to generalize due to their context‐dependent nature. Animal‐pollinated flowers are commonly exploited by larcenists, non‐pollinating animals that consume floral rewards often without transferring pollen. The impacts of larcenists on plant reproduction vary widely, suggesting they inflict differing costs on plants, but which types of floral larceny are most and least costly, and why, has received little attention. We employed a meta‐analytical approach to explore the effects of flower larceny on nectar traits, pollinator visitation, and plant reproduction. We focused on the effects of two contrasting forms of larceny: primary nectar robbing—nectar consumption through holes constructed in the corolla rather than entering flowers legitimately—and nectar theft—nectar consumption by entering flowers but with no pollen transfer. We found that both robbing and theft had negative impacts on nectar quantity and quality, but that only theft negatively affected pollinator visitation rates. Similarly, robbers had no impact on either female or male reproductive success, whereas thieves consistently reduced both male and female reproductive success. These effects were not associated with plant mating systems nor with the identities of robbers and effective pollinators, challenging previous generalizations. This study provides a comprehensive evaluation of larcenists' costs to animal‐pollinated plants, revealing that nectar theft is more detrimental to plant reproduction than nectar robbing. These results enhance our understanding of the intricate dynamics of mutualism exploitation in ecological and evolutionary contexts.