This report presents findings from the 2026 MetroList® Services Broker-MLS Market Intelligence Survey, conducted by T3 Sixty. Scores are calculated on a 1.0–4.0 scale and rated using T3 Sixty’s national benchmarking thresholds. Overall composite score: 3.31 (Superior), n = 204 respondents.
SUMMARY & SCORECARD PAGES
Executive Summary — Overall Performance Overview
Page 1
Performance Scorecard — All Categories
Page 2
Performance Scoring Comparables
Page 3
Performance Scoring and Ratings
Page 4
CATEGORY 1: SATISFACTION AND VALUE
Q2 — Overall MLS Satisfaction
Pages 5–6
Q3 — MLS Business Importance
Pages 7–8
Q4 — MLS Value Perception
Page 9
CATEGORY 2: SUPPORT AND SERVICES
Q5 — Support and Services Matrix
Pages 11–13
CATEGORY 3: DATA
Q6 — Data Quality Matrix
Pages 14–16
CATEGORY 4: TECHNOLOGY
Q7 — Technology & Tools Matrix
Pages 17–19
CATEGORY 5: PARTNERSHIP AND TRUST
Q8 — Partnership and Relationship Statements
Pages 20–21
Q9 — Data Governance Confidence
Pages 22–23
Q10 — Technology Governance Confidence
Pages 24–25
Q11 — Governance and Decision-Making Statements
Pages 26–27
NON-SCORING TOPICS & APPENDIX
Q12 — Business Climate
Page 28
Q13 — MLS Evolution
Page 29
Q14 — Marketplace Model
Page 30
Q15 — Subscription Data Access
Page 31
Q16 — Expanded Property Data
Page 32
Q17 — Investment Priorities
Page 33
Additional Comments and Open-Ended Responses
Page 34
Respondent Demographics Overview
Page 35
Cross-Tabulation by Brokerage Type, Broker Role, No. of MLSs, Brokerage Size
Pages 36–39
APPENDICES
Appendix A — T3 Scoring Methodology: Response Scale, Rating Tiers, Category Formulas
Page 40
Appendix A — T3 Scoring Methodology: Worked Example & National Benchmarking Framework
Page 41
Appendix B — Survey Question Reference: Standardized & Local Questions
Page 42
T3 Sixty
Broker–MLS Market Intelligence Survey
Premium Report | March 2026
Executive Summary — Overall Performance Overview
MetroList® Services achieved an Overall Composite Score of 3.31 out of 4.00, earning a Superior rating in the 2026 T3 Sixty Broker–MLS Market Intelligence Benchmarking Survey. This result reflects strong broker confidence in MetroList's core value proposition — particularly its data quality and support services — while identifying technology modernization and partnership engagement as the clearest opportunities for improvement. The 204 responses collected represent a broad cross-section of the MetroList broker community, predominantly independent brokerages and broker-owners across the Northern California Central Valley. Three of the five scoring categories — Satisfaction and Value, Support and Services and Data — registered Superior scores, underscoring MetroList's foundational strength as an MLS. Category 4 (Technology) and Category 5 (Partnership and Trust) both scored in the Good range, signaling that while brokers view MetroList as a reliable and important partner, they are looking for a more modern user experience and a stronger voice in how the MLS evolves. The survey also surfaced meaningful broker perspectives on strategic questions around data governance, marketplace models and geographic expansion that will inform MetroList's planning conversations in the year ahead.
Overall Composite Score
3.31
Superior
n = 204 respondents 1.0–4.0 scale
1.
Satisfaction and Value
3.45
Superior
2.
Support and Services
3.37
Superior
3.
Data
3.42
Superior
4.
Technology
3.17
Good
5.
Partnership and Trust
3.13
Good
Key Findings
1
The MLS Is Seen as Mission-Critical — Satisfaction Follows MetroList earned an Exceptional rating on business importance (Q3: 3.64), with brokers overwhelmingly confirming the MLS is central to how they operate. This strong sense of reliance translates meaningfully into satisfaction: 87 percent of brokers reported being Very Satisfied or Satisfied with overall MLS performance. The Superior score on overall satisfaction (Q2: 3.27) reflects a base of goodwill that MetroList can build upon — but also an expectation that performance must keep pace with what brokers need.
2
Data Quality Stands as a Clear Competitive Strength Category 3 (Data) scored 3.42 — the highest category score in the report — with 92 percent of brokers expressing satisfaction with overall data quality. Individual components were consistently strong: data accuracy (3.47), data enabling agent success (3.42) and data accessibility (3.37) all landed in the Superior range. Brokers cited the reliability of MetroList's data as a fundamental reason for subscribing, and many specifically praised access to tax records and tools like TrendVision as standout differentiators.
3
Support and Services Earns High Marks — With Notable Gaps Category 2 (Support and Services) scored 3.37 (Superior), driven largely by strong communication scores and solid overall support satisfaction. However, compliance and rules enforcement registered the lowest component score in this category (3.18), and open-ended responses reveal meaningful broker frustration with perceived inconsistency in enforcement and reactive rather than proactive compliance communication. Broker-focused training also surfaced as an underserved area, with several respondents noting limited broker-specific educational opportunities.
4
Technology Is Functional but Needs a Modern Upgrade Category 4 (Technology) scored 3.17 — the only category in the Good range among the five — with platform usability cited as the single most common pain point (27 percent of respondents). Specific frustrations centered on the mobile app experience, perceived complexity relative to consumer platforms like Zillow and Redfin, and concerns about AI tools that are seen as adding friction rather than value. A focused investment in user experience — particularly the mobile app and search functionality — would likely produce the largest single-category score improvement.
5
Partnership and Trust Requires Intentional Investment Category 5 (Partnership and Trust) scored 3.13 (Good). Brokers broadly see MetroList as a partner — 89 percent agreement — but only 70 percent feel they have meaningful input into MLS priorities, and broker input into decisions (2.93) is the only sub-score below 3.00 in the report. That gap is the clearest improvement opportunity in this category and the most directly addressable through structured engagement.
6
Strategic Questions Signal Broker Appetite for Evolution — With Clear Guardrails Brokers demonstrated strong support for MetroList's evolution in both technology (85 percent agree) and geographic footprint (83 percent agree). There is meaningful openness to expanded property data coverage — 74 percent agree overall, with commercial and rental garnering the most enthusiasm. However, broker appetite for subscription-based data access to outside industries was considerably more measured — 37 percent agree — reflecting deep concern about data sovereignty and the risk of monetizing broker-owned data for third-party benefit.
Conclusion: MetroList® Services enters 2026 with a strong foundation — Superior-rated across three of five categories, with high broker reliance and a data quality profile that sets it apart. The path to an Exceptional composite score runs through technology modernization, more consistent compliance communication and deeper broker engagement in decision-making. Brokers are not asking MetroList to become something fundamentally different; they are asking it to be more modern, more consultative and more focused on core MLS excellence before expanding into new territory. The results of this survey provide a clear and actionable map for MetroList leadership to act on in the year ahead.
T3 Sixty
Broker–MLS Market Intelligence Survey
Premium Report | March 2026
Performance Scorecard
Scores across all five rated categories of the 2026 survey. 1–4 scale.
Overall Performance Score
3.31
out of 4.00
T3 Sixty Rating
Superior
Survey Respondents
204
brokers & agents
Performance Category
T3 Score
T3 Rating
Score (1.0—4.0 scale)
1. Satisfaction and Value
3.45
Superior
1.02.03.04.0
2. Support and Services
3.37
Superior
1.02.03.04.0
3. Data
3.42
Superior
1.02.03.04.0
4. Technology
3.17
Good
1.02.03.04.0
5. Partnership and Trust
3.13
Good
1.02.03.04.0
T3 Sixty Rating Scale:
Exceptional 3.50–4.00
Superior 3.25–3.49
Good 3.00–3.24
Average 2.50–2.99
Deficient 1.00–2.49
Satisfaction & Component Score DetailBar scale: 1.0–4.0 · Color = T3 rating tier
1. Satisfaction and Value
3.45
Overall MLS Performance Satisfaction
3.27
Business Importance to Members
3.64
2. Support and Services
3.37
Overall Support & Services Satisfaction
3.45
MLS Communications
3.38
Agent Support & Training
3.32
Broker Support & Training
3.27
Compliance & Rules Enforcement
3.18
Q5 Component Average
3.29
3. Data
3.42
Overall Data Satisfaction
3.43
Accuracy & Reliability
3.47
Enables Agents with Data
3.42
Accessible & Usable
3.37
Q6 Component Average
3.42
4. Technology
3.17
Overall Technology Satisfaction
3.14
Reliable Platform
3.16
Enables Agents
3.19
Accessible & Usable
3.22
Q7 Component Average
3.19
5. Partnership and Trust
3.13
Partnership Statements (avg)
3.11
MLS as Partner in Brokerage Success
3.38
Trust in MLS Decision-Making
3.03
Input & Representation Opportunities
2.93
Data Governance Confidence
3.13
Technology Confidence
3.13
Governance Statements (avg)
3.13
Data Benefit to Brokers
3.23
Transparent about Data Sharing
3.13
Long-term Decisions Align w/ Broker Interests
3.11
T3 Sixty
Broker–MLS Market Intelligence Survey
Premium Report | March 2026
Supplemental 3 — Performance Scoring and Ratings
Performance Scoring and Ratings
All survey questions are scored on a weighted 1–4 scale. Category scores are calculated as the average of their contributing question and component scores. T3 Sixty assigns performance ratings based on score thresholds established across the national broker survey program.
Scoring Methodology: Respondents rate each item on a 4-point scale: (4) Very Satisfied / Strongly Agree · (3) Satisfied / Agree · (2) Dissatisfied / Disagree · (1) Very Dissatisfied / Strongly Disagree. “No Opinion” responses are excluded from score calculations. Category scores are the weighted average of all contributing question and component scores.
Performance Category Calculation Formulas
Performance Category
Contributing Questions
Score Calculation
1. Satisfaction and Value
Q2, Q3
Average of Q2 (Overall MLS Performance Satisfaction) and Q3 (Business Importance to Members).
2. Support and Services
Q5
Average of Q5 Overall score and the mean of Q5 component scores(Broker Support & Training · Agent Support & Training · Compliance & Rules Enforcement · MLS Communications)
3. Data
Q6
Average of Q6 Overall score and the mean of Q6 component scores(Accuracy & Reliability · Enables Agents with Data · Accessible & Usable)
4. Technology
Q7
Average of Q7 Overall score and the mean of Q7 component scores(Reliable Platform · Enables Agents · Accessible & Usable)
5. Partnership and Trust
Q8, Q9, Q10, Q11
Average of Q8 Partnership Statements mean + Q9 (Data Governance Confidence) + Q10 (Technology Confidence) + Q11 Governance Statements mean.Q8: MLS as Partner · Trust in Decision-Making · Input & Representation · Q11: Manages Data Responsibly · Operations are Transparent
Overall Composite Score
All categories
Simple average of all five category scores (Categories 1–5 weighted equally).
T3 Sixty
Broker–MLS Market Intelligence Survey
Premium Report | March 2026
Performance Scoring Comparables
The comparables table displays MetroList® Services’s 2026 scores alongside benchmark placeholders. T3 Sixty national broker benchmarks will be populated as additional MLSs complete the survey program.
Category
2026 Score
2026 Rating
T3 Benchmark Comparable
T3 Benchmark Score
T3 Benchmark Rating
Overall
3.31
Superior
Building
Building
Building
1. Satisfaction and Value
3.45
Superior
Building
Building
Building
2. Support and Services
3.37
Superior
Building
Building
Building
3. Data
3.42
Superior
Building
Building
Building
4. Technology
3.17
Good
Building
Building
Building
5. Partnership and Trust
3.13
Good
Building
Building
Building
T3 and Local Benchmark Coding (applied when comparables data is available):
National Performance Comparables
TP
Top Performer
Highest T3 scoring benchmark
EX
Excelling
0.1+ above T3 benchmark
COM
Competitive
Within 0.09 above/below T3 benchmark
IO
Improvement Opportunity
0.1+ below T3 benchmark
Year over Year or Cohort Performance Comparables
EX
Excelling
0.1+ above the MLS’s scoring benchmark
COM
Competitive
Within 0.09 above/below the MLS’s benchmark
IO
Improvement Opportunity
0.1+ below the MLS’s scoring benchmark
Two Uses of T3 Scores
National Comparison (Cross-Sectional)
Each participating MLS’s T3 Score is compared to the national benchmark for the same survey cycle. This reveals how the MLS performs relative to its peers — identifying areas of competitive strength and gaps that warrant attention. Displayed in the Scoring Comparables report section using National Avg, Regional Avg, and Prior Year columns.
Year-Over-Year Tracking (Longitudinal)
For MLS organizations that commission the survey on a recurring basis, T3 Scores from successive years are compared directly to identify performance trends. A change of 0.10 points or more is considered a meaningful shift — movement below this threshold may reflect normal survey variance rather than a genuine change in broker sentiment.
Interpreting Benchmark Comparisons: A score above the national average indicates performance recognized as above-peer-norm by the MLS’s own broker community. A score below the national average signals an opportunity area relative to the broader market. Year-over-year improvement trends carry particular weight with MLS leadership as evidence of intentional, sustained performance gains.
T3 Sixty
Broker–MLS Market Intelligence Survey
Premium Report | March 2026
1
Satisfaction and Value
Q2 — Overall Satisfaction
Q: Overall, how satisfied are you with the recent performance of MetroList® MLS?
Overall MLS Performance Satisfaction
(4) Very Satisfied: 39.9%
(3) Satisfied: 42.8%
(2) Dissatisfied: 9.8%
(1) Very Dissatisfied: 2.3%
No Opinion: 5.2%
3.27
SUPERIOR
87.2% Positive
12.8% Negative
2026 Score
2026 Rating
T3 Broker Benchmark
T3 Benchmark Rating
3.27
Superior
Building
—
Benchmark Note: Benchmark data is currently in the building phase; comparative norms will be reported beginning in Year 2 of the program.
Score Breakdown by Respondent Demographics: Overall MLS Performance Satisfaction
MetroList earned a Superior overall satisfaction score of 3.27 on the 4-point scale, with 87 percent of respondents indicating they were Very Satisfied or Satisfied with MLS performance. This is a strong result that reflects a broad base of broker goodwill. The qualitative responses reveal a picture of an MLS that is genuinely valued by its members — particularly for its data coverage, geographic reach and accessible staff — while also facing real pressure to modernize its platform and simplify the user experience. Frustrations were most commonly directed at the mobile app, search complexity, and a sense that the platform has become more cumbersome with successive enhancements rather than simpler.
Key Themes
Data Coverage and Geographic Reach Drive Core Satisfaction — MetroList's broad service area and access to integrated tools — TrendVision, Cloud CMA, and county tax records — are consistently cited as primary drivers of satisfaction, particularly among long-tenured broker members.
Platform Usability Is the Most Common Friction Point — The search and mobile experiences were the most frequently cited sources of dissatisfaction, with brokers noting that each platform enhancement has added complexity rather than simplifying routine tasks.
Human Accessibility Reinforces Broker Loyalty — The ability to reach a live, knowledgeable support person was praised by multiple respondents as a meaningful and increasingly rare industry differentiator that strengthens long-term trust.
Consumer Portal Competition Creates Background Pressure — A subset of respondents noted that client-facing portals such as Zillow present a more polished consumer experience, creating indirect pressure on broker reliance on the MLS platform over time.
Sample Comments
"User friendly is improving but still needs work."
"glitchy, freezes up, blank screens, and the mobile app us useless. My buyers say that the public user end of the mobile app is no good and they keep going back to zillow because it is more user friendly. So this software is not helping build a relationship with potential buyers or sellers."
"Land and commercial flyers do not generate. I also feel other platforms like Crexi, Loop net and Land.com are taking a lead on media presence for buyers and sellers."
"Overall, there are a lot of positives with the MLS. I've had some challenges searching, especially from mobile app. The picture sorting is very challenging to use. I now try to sort pictures prior to upload, which is a lot more work - would be nice to be able to number them to sort."
"Agents enjoy many of the features this MLS has to offer and it is one of my favorite MLS's. HOWEVER, I would love if the coverage area was larger. Would also love the ability to enter and showcase rentals on this MLS. The public is vulnerable to fraud and this would be helpful to them whether they know it or not."
"I am new to Metrolist and I learning the system."
"I was a member since 1996. Remember Lightning & dial-up? I quit a year ago. I'm a member of the much bigger CRMLS. In 30 years, I was dropped at least 6 times. That's only every 5 years, but I'm only 30 days late. I get charged a whole new sign up fee and have to fill out all the paperwork, like I NEVER EXISTED. So now I don't. You charge late fees, but apparently that's not enough."
T3 Sixty
Broker–MLS Market Intelligence Survey
Premium Report | March 2026
1
Satisfaction and Value
Q2 — Overall Satisfaction (Additional Comments)
Sample Comments
"Other MLS offer a larger coverage area including what Metrolist offers."
"Metro list is the most antiquated archaic, clunky platform to search real estate on the market. The consumers use zillow, ChatGPT and redfin to get information quicker than we do, and for free!"
"It offers information as a basic beginning for all my transactions."
"Not enough value for the cost"
"Photo upload limitations"
"It seems like there's many more steps to do basic things that we used to be able to do much faster yes it's enhanced and gives us a lot more information but it was so quick and easy to use and it seems that for some reason especially my program I've had to call in a couple times in random things keep happening that they said is not happening to the masses so I don't know why but things just are not working on my end very well"
"Database is accurate and easy to access."
""Very satisfied" would mean that I could go into MLS system and very quickly find, search or post properties with minimal effort; or, if there is any time away from the MLS system, it requires a retraining or re-education process. It is good but not great"
"It is good, but could be simplified, and better communication about changes and training."
"When I put contacts in and they looked at listings I sent them I was notified. These are contacts that opted in. I did contact the MLS and they said to make sure the contacts opted in which I did but nothing has changed and I am not the only agent experiencing this."
"I am so happy that our MetroList MLS serves such a large area"
"I have adapted to the recent changes to the user interface."
"Doesn’t follow the website universal standards. For instance, the backspace it doesn’t work so it’s like a platform inside of the webpage. If that was the platform like an app it has to act as an app like photoshop app not an app inside of the website. even online apps, they follow universal website standards, such as Adobe."
"Appreciate updates and upgrades although is still misses on simplicity (1-2 clicks) then having too many choices."
"Looking to continue to expand our partnership and support to bring New Homes as an alternative offering to the home buyers in our region leveraging our Brokerage community."
"It has become too expensive for the slow market that we're in"
T3 Sixty
Broker–MLS Market Intelligence Survey
Premium Report | March 2026
1
Satisfaction and Value
Q3 — Business Importance
Q: How important is MetroList® MLS to the overall success of your brokerage business?
Business Importance to Members
(4) Very Important: 72.8%
(3) Important: 17.3%
(2) Not Very Important: 5.8%
(1) Not at All Important: 2.3%
No Opinion: 1.7%
3.64
EXCEPTIONAL
91.8% Positive
8.2% Negative
2026 Score
2026 Rating
T3 Broker Benchmark
T3 Benchmark Rating
3.64
Exceptional
Building
—
Benchmark Note: Benchmark data is currently in the building phase; comparative norms will be reported beginning in Year 2 of the program.
Score Breakdown by Respondent Demographics: Business Importance to Members
Business importance scored at an Exceptional 3.64 — the highest individual question score in the report. Virtually all broker respondents view the MLS as either Very Important or Important to their brokerage's success. This near-universal reliance is a significant asset for MetroList: it reinforces the cooperative's central role in the regional real estate ecosystem and establishes a strong foundation for strategic investment. At the same time, a handful of respondents noted that rising competition from consumer portals and changes to commission structures have begun to erode the MLS's perceived indispensability at the margins.
Key Themes
MLS Data Remains the Non-Negotiable Core of Broker Operations — Brokers consistently described MetroList data as the authoritative source of listing information for cooperation, CMAs, and agent productivity — something consumer portals cannot replicate for professional use.
Seller Visibility and Cooperative Access Define the Value Case — Maximum property exposure for sellers and structured buyer-agent cooperation were cited as the fundamental justifications for MLS membership, independent of platform quality or feature breadth.
Perceived Optionality Is Eroding at the Margins — A minority of respondents indicated they subscribe primarily to satisfy data feed requirements rather than because they actively rely on the platform — a signal that the value narrative needs active reinforcement.
Sample Comments
"I need it to work better."
"Although there are other platforms out there, I am confident the truest representation of data comes from the MLS."
"It is incredibly important that the MLS we subscribe to and pay for does not give our listing info away and play favorites and hurt the agents as a whole!"
"Could not do business without it!"
"Very helpful in marketing properties."
"You're not the only game in the state. You have comp[etition, act like it."
"Online platforms are offering the same results."
T3 Sixty
Broker–MLS Market Intelligence Survey
Premium Report | March 2026
1
Satisfaction and Value
Q3 — Business Importance (Additional Comments)
Sample Comments
"You make it so we can't do business without it"
"since law changed and seller do not have to pay buyer;s ageant commision, it dose not help small or indepentdent brokers."
"Due to the fact that anyone can use zillow- clients no longer respect our services. Who allowed this..?"
"Expedient access to the information provided is what makes real estate agents "professional" and not just finders ("can you find this for me?")."
"It is a critical part of our business."
"They are the only way we can get out listings out to the public."
"It's invaluable for understanding the value of real property."
"Our brokerage business does not entirely rely on Metrolist MLS for our success."
"I only us MLS for personal referrals"
"We actively list and cooperate with the Realtor community to the exten that 60-70% of all of our sales come from a Realtor relationship."
"MLS provides a data service that enables all sellers of all properties to get maximum visibility to their property in order to obtain the highest and best price possible. And the dissemination of data to consumers and agents is critical to that process."
"The mls and its tools are used to help generate reports for listings"
"The only reason I have to subscribe is to get a data feed for listings that are placed in my market from out of area agents."
"I think the Zillow's, Redfin's and internet are gaining traction"
"Its required to function as an agent"
"There can be a value if things work more efficiently, I still want an app for my buyers and sellers to engage my MetroList website."
T3 Sixty
Broker–MLS Market Intelligence Survey
Premium Report | March 2026
1
Satisfaction and Value
Q4 — Value Proposition
Which of the following describes how MetroList® MLS primarily adds value to your brokerage? (Select all that apply)
Note: Diagnostic multi-select question. Results are not scored against the 4-point scale.
How MetroList MLS Primarily Adds Value to Your Brokerage
Value Proposition Unclear
5.9%
Other
5.9%
As a Service Organization
39.7%
Broker Cooperative Platform
42.6%
As a Technology Platform
48.5%
% of Respondents (Multiple selections allowed)
Sentiment Summary
Brokers see MetroList through a multi-dimensional lens: 49 percent describe it primarily as a technology platform, 43 percent as a broker cooperative platform and 40 percent as a service organization and business resource. 6 percent indicated the value proposition was unclear. The fact that all three primary value descriptors received strong selection rates suggests that MetroList has built a genuinely broad-based value case — but also that there is no single, dominant narrative in how brokers perceive the organization. This diversity of perception is both an asset and a communication opportunity.
Key Themes
The Integrated Tool Suite Defines Multi-Dimensional Value — Brokers experience MetroList's value across cooperative access, data quality, and the integrated tool platform simultaneously — Cloud CMA, Realist, and TrendVision were specifically cited as standout examples.
Value Perception Varies Meaningfully by Brokerage Size — Larger brokerages tend to emphasize technology and data platform value, while smaller independents focus on cooperative access and compliance services — a segmentation with implications for communications strategy.
Proactive Value Communication Remains an Opportunity — A subset of respondents described MetroList as a 'required' service rather than a chosen one; clearer proactive communication about what membership includes and why it matters would likely strengthen the value narrative.
Sample Comments
"get better software engineers, the current ones are not very good, the old system worked much better than the new one."
"It helps get property information and listing properties."
"I love that we have lots of tools available and incorporated to Metrolist like cloudcma, REALIST and more. As a broker I enjoy the ability to look up ones production etc."
"Helps bring properties to the attention to other brokerages."
"Marketing offerings for now."
"If it wasn't for the agent remarks, i'm sure we could get everything we needed.And do everything we need done through other platforms."
"Marketing middleman for the major listing portals"
"We have no choice so we have to belong"
"The industry couldn’t survive without it."
"Also the price is too high monthly."
"I particularly like having easy access to County property tax records, cordial tech support, and a basic confidence in the data."
T3 Sixty
Broker–MLS Market Intelligence Survey
Premium Report | March 2026
1
Satisfaction and Value
Q4 — Value Proposition (Additional Comments)
Sample Comments
"As service providers such as Metrolist, letting Zillow take over the future of the Metrolist and its value is very unclear these days you can list and sell on Zillow without having Metrolist and this worry, lots of agents."
"Business resources, but specifically: data research resource. Free agent websites. Search engines"
"A service provider that collects data and sells the management of the data to its users."
"We occasionally get a sale or lease from a residential broker. So that is good. We'd get more if the platform provided all the information we needed and we didn't have to go search other sources."
"Having good data is key"
"I only use the data feed. I never login."
"They are a data collection company that provides a service to that data for a fee"
"Not negative or posative just required."
"The inventory of properties"
"Besides the cutting technology, MetroList supports the associations it serves, participating in fund-raisers and being present at important events. The board of directors represents a wide array of brokerages and locations, which creates the ability to give needed services to its members."
"So far they have taken value"
"Search listings (for sale) for clients, look at pending sales for current trends and look at historical sales INCLUDING INTERIOR PICTURES for relevance."
T3 Sixty
Broker–MLS Market Intelligence Survey
Premium Report | March 2026
2
Support and Services
Q5 — Support and Services Matrix
Q: Please indicate your level of satisfaction with the following MLS support and services provided by MetroList® MLS.
Overall Satisfaction with Support and Services
(4) Very Satisfied: 54.1%
(3) Satisfied: 34.9%
(2) Dissatisfied: 3.5%
(1) Very Dissatisfied: 3.5%
No Opinion: 4.1%
3.45
SUPERIOR
92.7% Positive
7.3% Negative
Support and Services — Response Distribution by Component
MLS Communications
42%
39%
7%
7%
6%
3.38
Agent Support/Training
39%
40%
8%
7%
6%
3.32
Broker Support/Training
36%
42%
9%
7%
6%
3.27
Compliance & Rules Enforcement
32%
43%
11%
8%
6%
3.18
(4) Very Satisfied
(3) Satisfied
(2) Dissatisfied
(1) Very Dissatisfied
No Opinion
Right column: MetroList Score
Component
Score
Rating
Score
Rating
T3 Benchmark
Category Score (Satisfaction + Components)
3.37
Superior
Building
—
Overall Satisfaction
3.45
Superior
Building
—
MLS Communications
3.38
Superior
Building
—
Agent Support and Agent-Focused Training
3.32
Superior
Building
—
Broker Support and Broker-Focused Training
3.27
Superior
Building
—
Compliance and Rules Enforcement
3.18
Good
Building
—
Component Average
3.29
Superior
Building
—
Benchmark Note: Benchmark data is currently in the building phase; comparative norms will be reported beginning in Year 2 of the program.
T3 Sixty
Broker–MLS Market Intelligence Survey
Premium Report | March 2026
2
Support and Services
Q5 — Support and Services Matrix
Score Breakdown by Respondent Demographics: Support and Services Satisfaction
Support and Services produced a category composite score of 3.37 (Superior), with overall support satisfaction at 3.45 and 93 percent of respondents expressing satisfaction. MLS communications scored highest among components (3.38), followed by agent support (3.32), broker support (3.27) and compliance enforcement (3.18). The positive results here reflect MetroList's genuine investment in human-centered service — brokers appreciate being able to reach a live person and receiving responsive support. However, compliance enforcement was the lowest-rated component, and qualitative responses suggest that the compliance experience is a meaningful source of broker frustration — particularly around perceived inconsistency and the use of member-reported violations rather than proactive enforcement.
Key Themes
Human-Centered Support Is a Genuine and Recognized Differentiator — The ability to reach a live, responsive support person was praised repeatedly as exceptional in today's industry — brokers described MetroList staff as cordial, knowledgeable, and genuinely helpful.
Compliance Enforcement Feels Reactive and Inconsistent — Compliance and rules enforcement generated the most critical feedback in this category, with brokers requesting more proactive communication about rule changes and greater consistency in how violations are assessed.
Training Access Has Gaps in Reach and Broker-Specific Depth — While training offerings were generally appreciated, availability outside business hours and beyond the main service center was cited as a limitation, and several respondents noted a lack of content specifically designed for brokers rather than agents.
Agent Support and Communications Are a Clear Strength — Agent support satisfaction and MLS communications both scored in the Superior range, reflecting a broad base of positive experience with MetroList's day-to-day service delivery.
Sample Comments
"I'm unsure of what Broker trainings are available."
"Love that you give chances for mistakes"
"Listings are not treated consistently."
"As far as compliance rules and enforcements, you guys actually find reasons to make it harder for us to represent our sellers. And go above and beyond to sell their houses. How about you allow a coming soon campaign like other m l s platforms"
"Subject line in the emails need to be subject matter specific instead of a general subject header. At a minimum reference to property address"
"Sometimes rules seam a little to strict."
"I have not seen broker-focused training."
T3 Sixty
Broker–MLS Market Intelligence Survey
Premium Report | March 2026
2
Support and Services
Q5 — Support and Services Matrix (Additional Comments)
Sample Comments
"Response times for support is inconsistent"
"No training available on weekends"
"new to metrolist"
"The enforcement is a joke. You have created a snitch environment instead of doing your own policing and it’s a guilty until proven innocent situation. This from a group we have to pay to do this to us. Then your technical support group, historically, is complete jerks and no help"
"Planter is a big county and we live a long way from the office for the association it would appreciate more zoom opportunities to participate in education that is now only offered on site"
"Generally it is possible to speak to a real person when I call Metrolist for help. This is becoming a rare and unusual quality in today's world. Therefore, I've very appreciative of that level of service."
"More options for training to navigate the website would be appreciated"
"See previous answers"
"All are on par and neccissary"
"The continual pop-ups with irrelevant messaging is frustrating."
"When I'm logging onto the computer I am in a hurry for something. That is NOT the time to delay me to attempt to get me to read something. Will NEVER happen. Send me an as need never more than once a week email with a specific subject and I read it in my down time like when I catch up on the news."
"There is nothing about an MLS services that Metrolist doesn't provide."
"It seems a goal of the MLS is to generate income with violations stop it"
"Support and services are excellent. The compliance is spotty and they do know proactive enforcement."
T3 Sixty
Broker–MLS Market Intelligence Survey
Premium Report | March 2026
3
Data
Q6 — Data Quality Matrix
Q: Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements about MLS data provided by MetroList® MLS.
Overall Satisfaction with Data
(4) Very Satisfied: 50.6%
(3) Satisfied: 39.0%
(2) Dissatisfied: 5.8%
(1) Very Dissatisfied: 1.7%
No Opinion: 2.9%
3.43
SUPERIOR
92.2% Positive
7.8% Negative
Data — Response Distribution by Component
Accuracy & Reliability
49%
34%
6%
5%
6%
3.47
Enables Agents with Data
45%
36%
6%
6%
6%
3.42
Accessible & Usable
42%
39%
7%
7%
6%
3.37
(4) Very Satisfied
(3) Satisfied
(2) Dissatisfied
(1) Very Dissatisfied
No Opinion
Right column: MetroList Score
Component
Score
Rating
Score
Rating
T3 Benchmark
Category Score (Satisfaction + Components)
3.42
Superior
Building
—
Overall Satisfaction
3.43
Superior
Building
—
Accuracy & Reliability
3.47
Superior
Building
—
Enables Agents with Data
3.42
Superior
Building
—
Accessible & Usable
3.37
Superior
Building
—
Component Average
3.42
Superior
Building
—
Benchmark Note: Benchmark data is currently in the building phase; comparative norms will be reported beginning in Year 2 of the program.
T3 Sixty
Broker–MLS Market Intelligence Survey
Premium Report | March 2026
3
Data
Q6 — Data Quality Matrix
Score Breakdown by Respondent Demographics: Data Satisfaction
MetroList's Data category is its strongest performer, scoring 3.42 (Superior) with 92 percent overall satisfaction on data quality. All three data components scored in the Superior range: accuracy and reliability (3.47), data enabling agent success (3.42) and data accessibility and usability (3.37). Brokers expressed high trust in the integrity of MetroList's data and saw it as the clearest justification for their subscription. The most common enhancement requests centered on improved data accessibility — particularly on mobile — and expanded data types including ADU comparables and more robust commercial property data.
Key Themes
Data Integrity and Accuracy Are Well-Established and Trusted — Brokers consistently described MetroList data as more reliable and authoritative than consumer aggregators, with county tax record access and TrendVision cited as specific and valued differentiators.
Mobile and Field Data Access Needs Improvement — While data quality scores were the highest in the report, accessibility scored slightly lower — mobile access in particular was cited as creating unnecessary friction for agents working in the field with clients.
Demand for Expanded Data Coverage Is Growing — Requests for ADU comparable data, commercial listings, and broader geographic coverage appeared frequently across open-ended responses, reflecting broker appetite for a more comprehensive and competitive data environment.
Sample Comments
"I wish there was a way to pull deeds and title information and well as better comparables. We always have to use other sources."
"Square footage is not treated the same."
"I m a single independent Broker"
"I don't work from a cell phone. My business & I are not children."
"Your data is accurate. However, it is extremely hard and lengthy with numerous unnecessary steps to get your map interaction. Trying to find a specific neighborhood and community is a criminal. How hard it is in comparison to how easy it is.On other platforms like zillow and redfin"
"We only get certain not the full state data"
"Mobile app can get a little clunky and sometimes not show all available information like days on Market, basic questions that buyers would ask us right on the spot after we open the door and they start walking through. That information should be readily available on the phone app after opening the Supra box"
T3 Sixty
Broker–MLS Market Intelligence Survey
Premium Report | March 2026
3
Data
Q6 — Data Quality Matrix (Additional Comments)
Sample Comments
"I rely on it exclusively"
"CRMLS uses 'local logic' and integrates other data. It becomes more usable for agents. I think raw data is fine but something more usable for agents or trainings will be helpful."
"Would like the ability to run comps for ADUs"
"I am no longer supporting agents in my office"
"It’s only valuable because of the users and the ability to weed through the poor management of the data"
"Above I described my feelings on the availability to access data (I think it could/should be easier to do) and the amount of data (too much and too cumbersome requiring excessive time to obtain the essential data needed). Honestly, there is so much data on MLS that it is difficult for me to describe it as "accurate and reliable". Dat is accessible and usable-- it might be there but finding it quickly and easily is not possible."
"What we get is good but not fleshed out enough to be highly useful."
"The data provided seems to be very accurate"
"They take the system down whenever they feel like it no matter how it impacts users but when system is up its ok"
"The function is not user friendly. Technology can make this way more opperator error proof"
"I love TrendVision Reports. I use them in every CMA"
"There is good data but my agents don't know how to access it"
"Would like more broker training opportunity"
"The more accurate rating would be slightly because with minor adjustments there could be huge improvements"
"Metrolist doesn't partner with some 3rd party platforms to automatically import data."
"reliablely accurate as far as public records are accurate for that type of data"
T3 Sixty
Broker–MLS Market Intelligence Survey
Premium Report | March 2026
4
Technology
Q7 — Technology & Tools Matrix
Q: Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements about MLS technologies and tools provided by MetroList® MLS.
Overall Satisfaction with Technology
(4) Very Satisfied: 32.0%
(3) Satisfied: 47.7%
(2) Dissatisfied: 9.3%
(1) Very Dissatisfied: 4.7%
No Opinion: 6.4%
3.14
GOOD
85.1% Positive
14.9% Negative
Technology — Response Distribution by Component
Reliable Platform
31%
43%
11%
8%
6%
3.16
Enables Agents
32%
43%
11%
8%
6%
3.19
Accessible & Usable
34%
43%
10%
8%
6%
3.22
(4) Very Satisfied
(3) Satisfied
(2) Dissatisfied
(1) Very Dissatisfied
No Opinion
Right column: MetroList Score
Component
Score
Rating
Score
Rating
T3 Benchmark
Category Score (Satisfaction + Components)
3.17
Good
Building
—
Overall Satisfaction
3.14
Good
Building
—
Reliable Platform
3.16
Good
Building
—
Enables Agents
3.19
Good
Building
—
Accessible & Usable
3.22
Good
Building
—
Component Average
3.19
Good
Building
—
Benchmark Note: Benchmark data is currently in the building phase; comparative norms will be reported beginning in Year 2 of the program.
T3 Sixty
Broker–MLS Market Intelligence Survey
Premium Report | March 2026
4
Technology
Q7 — Technology & Tools Matrix
Score Breakdown by Respondent Demographics: Technology Satisfaction
Technology scored 3.17 (Good) — the weakest scoring category in the report — with 85 percent overall satisfaction but component scores reflecting broker reservations about the depth of technology performance. Reliability scored 3.16, agent enablement 3.19 and accessibility 3.22, all in the Good range. Qualitative responses paint a consistent picture: the platform is functional but not current with modern user experience expectations. Brokers frequently compared their MetroList experience unfavorably to Zillow, Redfin, and other consumer-facing platforms — not in terms of data quality, but in terms of speed, intuitiveness, and mobile experience. The AI-driven photo review tool specifically drew critical feedback as an example of a feature that adds friction rather than value.
Key Themes
Platform Usability Is the Single Most Impactful Technology Challenge — Search experience complexity, unreliable map functionality, and an insufficient mobile app were the most common technology complaints — consistent with Q17 pain point data showing usability as the top friction source at 27 percent.
Specific UX Friction Points Are Well-Defined and Addressable — The dual login system and repetitive AI photo review prompts were called out by multiple respondents as persistent, concrete examples of avoidable friction that diminish daily workflow efficiency.
Reliability Is Adequate but Rising Expectations Create Risk — Core platform functions are generally seen as 'good enough' rather than genuinely frustrating, but the competitive reliability benchmark has shifted — brokers now expect consumer-app-level uptime and responsiveness.
AI Features Require Broker Input Before Wider Deployment — Recent AI implementations were described as adding friction rather than saving time; brokers expressed openness to AI in principle but want meaningful involvement in feature design before further rollout.
Sample Comments
"The new AI system causes more issues than help. Comparable data is hard to aquire. Cloud CMA is a nice tool but it doesnt keep up with other programs"
"Cannot contact anyone for data source!"
"The mobile access is limited and more difficult"
"What tech tools? If you think that spam emailing us and throwing a message out on m l s you make us read, before we can get to the task at hand then you need to think of better ways to get a hold of your members to tell us about your "tech tools". Even this stupid little teeny, tiny box that I can't hardly see what is being typed is antiquated and hard to use!"
"Been licensed since 1993, technology is coming rapidly, sometimes hard for me to keep up. Thankfully, staff is very cordialand willing to help me out on the technology side. I operate as an individual sole brokerage, and very much appreciate the technology, and the employees who back up the techology"
"Satisfied overall, would love better functioning tech, lockboxes with codes,"
"We have our own value proposition for technology and marketing that our agents, learn and utilize."
"These are answers from a technologically-challenged person - on pretty much every platform.."
"Experiences must differ & depend upon the platforms used."
"My agents and I have long had issues with the apps. homesnap, homespotter, metrolist."
"See previously stated comment"
"Their fine. We deserve something for the costs"
"What are tech tools"
"Previously I shared that I think the software could be designed to be easier to use and more user friendly. Is it reliable, does it perform consistently, do my agents succeed, and is it accessible and usable--yes but I would emphasize that I think with the technological advances that I've experienced (e.g. buy something on Amazon), it all could be better."
"Super techy tools are not a main focus but Metrolist seems to be on top of things"
"Again. If our Realtor leadership will get their act together, we should only have one MLS for the entire state."
"It is sometimes difficult to get the data needed."
"There is so much availlible its over whelming to jnow where to start and what services offer what"
"Too much useless stuff. It creates a reliance instead of just working (most do not live up to what they claim or are not needed in the market"
"You are not a Tech provider. Focus on the basics like having an Export function that actually worked reliably even the same reliability as search would be a HUGE improvement instead of having AI partially pre-fill the listing input form."
"The technologies outdated and the mobile app is unusable. The client portal is very old technology and cannot compete with other software platforms that constantly collect and sell our clients data."
T3 Sixty
Broker–MLS Market Intelligence Survey
Premium Report | March 2026
5
Partnership and Trust
Q8 — Partnership and Relationship Statements
Q: Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements about your relationship with MetroList® MLS.
Partnership and Relationship — Response Distribution by Statement
MLS is a Partner in My Brokerage Success
42%
38%
7%
7%
6%
3.38
I Trust the MLS to Make Decisions in Broker Interests
26%
44%
14%
10%
6%
3.03
My Brokerage Has Opportunities to Provide Input
22%
44%
17%
11%
6%
2.93
(4) Strongly Agree
(3) Agree
(2) Disagree
(1) Strongly Disagree
No Opinion
Right column: MetroList Score
Statement
Score
Rating
MLS is a Partner in My Brokerage Success
3.38
Superior
I Trust the MLS to Make Decisions in Broker Interests
3.03
Good
My Brokerage Has Opportunities to Provide Input
2.93
Average
Benchmark Note: Benchmark data is currently in the building phase; comparative norms will be reported beginning in Year 2 of the program.
Partnership and Trust produced mixed results across its three components. The partner perception score (3.38) — whether brokers view MetroList as a partner in their brokerage success — was the highest and most positive, with 89 percent agreement. Trust in MLS decision-making scored 3.03 (Good), reflecting qualified confidence. Broker input into MLS priorities and decisions scored 2.93 — the only sub-score below 3.00 in the entire report — with 70 percent of brokers agreeing they have meaningful opportunities to provide input. This gap between feeling valued and feeling heard is the clearest call to action in Category 5, and the one most directly within MetroList's control to address.
Key Themes
Partnership Perception Is Broadly Positive but Trust Is Qualified — Most brokers express genuine appreciation for MetroList's role in their business, but trust in decision-making is moderated by concern about whether smaller brokerages have meaningful influence over how the MLS operates.
Broker Input Mechanisms Are the Most Actionable Governance Gap — The input score (2.93) is the only sub-score below 3.00 in the report; brokers do not feel there is a clear, accessible channel for providing ongoing feedback outside of annual surveys.
Equal Representation Across Brokerage Sizes Is a Core Expectation — Multiple respondents requested more inclusive committee structures and broader outreach to small and mid-sized brokerages, reflecting concern that the voices of larger operators carry disproportionate weight in governance decisions.
Sample Comments
"Couldn’t get hold of anyone who provided data source. MLS just shrugged and said we have no control."
"have been working with this MLS since 1997 and watched it grow and become a huge tool for all of us agents and brokers"
"They are a business and basically the only choice that we have to get the data we need"
"It is only a success because we have to belong to it"
"Brokerages of every size should be invited to the table to have these discussions about access and rules. That's not always intentional with MLS. New rule came out around off Market properties and properties being allowed to be shown first only inside of brokerages. I will strongly against that and my voice is a broker was not allowed to be heard or considered. When inventory is tied there should be no exclusivity on inventory."
"I greatly appreciate feeling like my concerns are heard and addressed."
"I am now a one man brokerage, which is the best option in these times"
T3 Sixty
Broker–MLS Market Intelligence Survey
Premium Report | March 2026
5
Partnership and Trust
Q8 — Partnership and Relationship Statements (Additional Comments)
Sample Comments
"Constantly make changes to hide data. Concessions should be required to be reported for accuracy. You bust us if the wrong order is on the sign on the wrong date, but the actual important facts are disregarded. How about lockbox requirements? Do you know how may combo boxes are used instead of ekey?"
"The decisions that seem to be made by MLS are more geared to either satisfying a minority of users who have a complaint, problem or need, or in the best interest of the large major brokerages that are more concerned with legal liability than day-to-day basics of what's needed to list and sell homes. All of that may bog down the system. Opportunities--I feel MLS is like fighting city hall. One small voice in such a large body--probably not worth the time that would need to be expended to provide input that may likely not be valued or used."
"Each MLS only cares about itself and it’s survival. If the MLS’s were actually acting in the best interest of the realtors, we would only have one."
"There is no easy process for feedback on the performance/format of the website"
"They make decisions and we have to live with them"
"Trust MLS is an odd question. And no I don't think MLS has my best interests at heart."
"Years back MLS's decision to sell data to Zillow was not a great idea."
"I've never felt the need to provide input regarding MLS priorities of decisions."
"We get surveys regularly"
T3 Sixty
Broker–MLS Market Intelligence Survey
Premium Report | March 2026
5
Partnership and Trust
Q9 — Data Governance Confidence
Q: I am confident in how MetroList® MLS governs, protects, and utilizes listing data on behalf of brokers.
Confidence in MLS Data Governance
(4) Strongly Agree: 33.5%
(3) Agree: 41.6%
(2) Disagree: 8.1%
(1) Strongly Disagree: 6.8%
No Opinion: 9.9%
3.13
GOOD
83.4% Positive
16.6% Negative
2026 Score
2026 Rating
T3 Broker Benchmark
T3 Rating
Regional Benchmark
Local Benchmark
3.13
Good
Building
—
Building
Building
Benchmark Note: Benchmark data is currently in the building phase; comparative norms will be reported beginning in Year 2 of the program.
Data governance confidence scored 3.13 (Good), with broadly positive results tempered by a vocal minority expressing concern about how broker-owned listing data is shared and monetized. Open-ended responses on this question were among the most pointed in the survey, with several respondents questioning whether the MLS truly acts as a steward of broker data or primarily serves its own interests. The most common concern centered on data flowing to third-party portals — Zillow in particular — and a sense that brokers have not been adequately consulted on these decisions. This perception challenge requires active communication and transparency to address effectively.
Key Themes
Technical Data Protection Is Generally Trusted — The majority of brokers are confident in MetroList's ability to prevent unauthorized data access, particularly among respondents with longer tenure in the market who have observed the MLS's track record over time.
Data Sharing with Third-Party Portals Is the Primary Trust Flashpoint — Zillow was cited most frequently as a concern, with brokers indicating that data-sharing decisions carry significant business implications that warrant greater transparency and broker consultation before being made.
A Clear Data Governance Statement Would Build Confidence — Respondents who expressed lower confidence consistently cited a lack of public communication about how sharing decisions are made; a formal governance philosophy statement would directly address this gap.
Sample Comments
"This question is contradictory. You do not govern or protect any information.You sell it!"
"If data was really protected, Zillow and data portals wouldn’t get it."
"Not really sure where you share our data to beside the mls"
"See my message above."
"It did not protect realtors. they sent our confidential info to clients / anyone who can pull up zillow"
"It seems like Metrolist just care about how much more money they can make otherwise they wouldn’t even empower a Zillow and other platform to profit out of agents and in the future, they will take over all real estate business"
"See answer to #8"
T3 Sixty
Broker–MLS Market Intelligence Survey
Premium Report | March 2026
5
Partnership and Trust
Q9 — Data Governance Confidence (Additional Comments)
Sample Comments
"If what we're talking about here is the protection of data from unlawful or unauthorized users--then, yes, the data is protected."
"I am not sure what Metrolist's objectives are with their data"
"The MLS has only advocate to protect themselves and not in the best interest of our members. That is why there are organizations working to build national MLS’s outside of the Realtor controlled ones."
"I agree they protect the data but I don't think they govern it on our behalf"
"Should offer all access to CA under one mls"
"The MLS has sold the listing out from under our feet."
"With being somewhat new to the Broker realm, I would like to understand the abilities the brokers have in Metrolist."
"sometimes I wonder if I am being protected"
"The misled guidance from NAR has hindered MLS, along with trying to partner with companies that should not exist"
"see above comment"
"They go by fines and fees, and increases on our dues"
T3 Sixty
Broker–MLS Market Intelligence Survey
Premium Report | March 2026
5
Partnership and Trust
Q10 — Technology Confidence
Q: I am confident that the MLS's technologies and tools are designed, selected, and managed in ways that support my brokerage's business needs.
Confidence in MLS Technology Selection & Management
(4) Strongly Agree: 30.4%
(3) Agree: 44.1%
(2) Disagree: 7.5%
(1) Strongly Disagree: 5.6%
No Opinion: 12.4%
3.13
GOOD
85.1% Positive
14.9% Negative
2026 Score
2026 Rating
T3 Broker Benchmark
T3 Rating
Regional Benchmark
Local Benchmark
3.13
Good
Building
—
Building
Building
Benchmark Note: Benchmark data is currently in the building phase; comparative norms will be reported beginning in Year 2 of the program.
Technology confidence scored 3.13 (Good), consistent with the broader technology category performance. Brokers are cautiously confident that MetroList's technology decisions are made with broker interests in mind, but many expressed the view that the pace of technology evolution is too slow and that some recent additions — particularly AI-driven features — have not been designed with the broker experience as the primary consideration. The desire for more practical, broker-specific technology — rather than consumer-facing enhancements — appeared consistently throughout the open-ended responses.
Key Themes
Confidence in Technology Intentions Is Moderate but Present — Most brokers believe MetroList's technology decisions are made in good faith, but a significant minority questioned whether those decisions reflect accurate understanding of day-to-day broker workflows and field-use requirements.
AI Implementations Have Introduced Skepticism About Technology Judgment — Recent AI-driven features — particularly photo analysis — were cited as examples of tools that added complexity rather than reducing it, creating doubt about whether broker input is genuinely shaping technology priorities.
Technology Investment Communication Needs to Be More Broker-Facing — The rationale behind MetroList's technology investments — what is being built, why, and how it benefits brokers — was cited as something that should be communicated more clearly and proactively to maintain confidence.
Sample Comments
"You protect your own needs."
"I think you try, but your platform is again antiquated and extremely user UNfriendly. Buyers do not want a invitation to a portal that they have to click on the invite with emailed results/listings. They one click shop, and easy scrolls, and want to be updated via text messages not emails only. They want to be able to change their search at will, without logging in a link via an email, then going through hoops and steps and passwords. Why doesn't metro list have a user friendly app for consumers at least? And if you do, it must not be successful, or the consumers would have it. I know ours is ok...but you add or change and open house from it! Please stop thinking everybody is sitting at a desktop all day. My goodness you guys read the room, look around you. Your platform is not even remotely comparable to our direct competition. It's embarrassing"
"There could be improvement but I can see it's improving. The AI involvement needs to be closely watched. After uploading all of the photos and saving them MLS offers an option to update the data. If you say no it appears to still update the data in certain areas making the criteria inaccurate."
"Again, I still don't see when my contacts view the listings I send them."
"They are managed for the most vocal and favored, not the masses"
"My answer to this question and my feelings are the same as I've indicated in above questions. Confident is a strong word. Confident that the technologies and tools are designed.....well, I believe it could be done better and I believe I could be more productive with a better system."
"Technologies are great as far as they go. Data doesn't support the commercial side."
"Antiquated platforms, antiquated API‘s antiquated data integration."
"We need a mobile app for the general public. Redfin is winning the mls out and so is Zillow"
"Tools may be availible but the deaign and function of mls is outdated and generic"
"Unsure how enhanced features that become incorporated into membership benefits are paid for. Does Metrolist buy the rights or licensing on behalf of all members? If so, some recent enhanced features may not be worth purchasing with membership dues."
T3 Sixty
Broker–MLS Market Intelligence Survey
Premium Report | March 2026
5
Partnership and Trust
Q11 — Governance and Decision-Making Statements
Q: Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements about how the MLS governs data and makes decisions about technology and tools.
Governance Statements — Response Distribution by Statement
Data used primarily to benefit brokers and clients
34%
42%
10%
8%
6%
3.23
Transparent about data sharing and licensing
30%
43%
12%
9%
6%
3.13
Long-term decisions align with broker interests
29%
43%
13%
9%
6%
3.11
Exercises appropriate restraint on new technologies
26%
44%
14%
10%
6%
3.04
Should focus on core MLS functions
31%
43%
12%
9%
6%
3.15
Should leverage economies of scale for broker benefit
30%
43%
12%
9%
6%
3.14
(4) Strongly Agree
(3) Agree
(2) Disagree
(1) Strongly Disagree
No Opinion
Right column: MetroList Score
Statement
Score
Rating
Data used primarily to benefit brokers and clients
3.23
Good
Transparent about data sharing and licensing
3.13
Good
Long-term decisions align with broker interests
3.11
Good
Exercises appropriate restraint on new technologies
3.04
Good
Should focus on core MLS functions
3.15
Good
Should leverage economies of scale for broker benefit
3.14
Good
Benchmark Note: Benchmark data is currently in the building phase; comparative norms will be reported beginning in Year 2 of the program.
The Q11 governance statements produced a mean score of 3.13 (Good), with individual items clustered tightly between 3.04 and 3.23. Brokers most strongly agreed that data is used primarily to benefit brokers and clients (3.23) and that the MLS should leverage economies of scale for broker benefit (3.14). The statements around long-term decision alignment with broker interests (3.11) and transparency about data sharing and licensing (3.13) scored in the middle — areas where intentional communication improvement could move the needle. The statement that the MLS should focus on core MLS functions scored 3.15, indicating meaningful broker support for a core-first strategic posture.
Key Themes
Brokers Endorse a Core-First Operational Strategy — The governance statement about focusing on core MLS functions scored well, reinforcing a consistent theme from open-ended responses that MetroList should excel at its primary mission before expanding into new services or markets.
Transparency Around Decisions and Data Governance Needs Investment — The transparency and long-term alignment statements received the softest scores in Q11, directly reflecting trust concerns surfaced in Q8 and Q9 — brokers want to understand how strategic and data-sharing decisions are made.
Consistent Core Execution Is the Foundation of Governance Confidence — Respondents who expressed the highest governance scores consistently cited MetroList's reliability on fundamentals — data, search, compliance — as the reason for their confidence, not strategic innovation or new feature deployment.
Sample Comments
"Stick to mls and dont try an do too much."
"This is how we sell. We need info and contact with other agents, the ability to do other things is less important"
"Not every platform sjhould be iPhone freindly."
"I really don't know how to add to what i've already said which is you guys are incredibly behind the times it's actually criminal what you charge us for what we get. And speaking of technology, why do you have meat type in a nice clear box for one question. And then a long rectangular box that I cannot go back and correct anything with for the next?! Everything you do is frustrating in the world of tech, even this survey."
"I don't feel like I know enough to answer these questions properly..."
"Note: honestly answering these questions assumes that the user has knowledge about "how" the information is used or what is being analyzed"
"You are asking numerous redundant questions"
"Technology decisions with our industry data are being made by people that have no experience working in technology."
"I agree Metrolist should utilize its scale to add beneficial services; I've just been underwhelmed with some of the recent enhancements (Metrolist Voice & AI review of imported photos)"
"Give me examples of what you mean by scale beyond core tech"
"If MetroList was meeting the needs expansion into other areas would be fine. But expanding into these other areas when basic service could be improved is wrong"
T3 Sixty
Broker–MLS Market Intelligence Survey
Premium Report | March 2026
Q12 — Business Climate
How would you characterize current real estate market conditions for your brokerage?
Current Business Climate for Your Brokerage
Unsure / Prefer not to answer
2.6%
Highly uncertain
3.8%
Strong and improving
16.0%
Challenging
19.2%
Softening or slowing
19.9%
Stable
38.5%
% of Respondents
Response Distribution by Respondent Demographics
Raw percentage responses by segment. No benchmark scoring applied.
Brokerage Type
% of segment respondents selecting each response option
Segment (n)
Stable
Softening or slowing
Challenging
Strong and improving
Highly uncertain
Independent Brokerage (174)
29%
16%
14%
13%
3%
Franchisee Office (12)
25%
17%
17%
8%
0%
National Brokerage Brand/Franchisor (7)
29%
14%
29%
29%
0%
Regional Brokerage Group (6)
17%
17%
17%
0%
0%
Broker Role
% of segment respondents selecting each response option
Segment (n)
Stable
Softening or slowing
Challenging
Strong and improving
Highly uncertain
Broker-Owner (128)
37%
20%
20%
16%
4%
Broker-Sales Person (15)
40%
13%
20%
13%
7%
Broker-Manager (7)
43%
43%
14%
0%
0%
Number of MLSs
% of segment respondents selecting each response option
Segment (n)
Stable
Softening or slowing
Challenging
Strong and improving
Highly uncertain
One (91)
41%
22%
20%
10%
3%
Two (34)
44%
12%
12%
26%
6%
Three or more (30)
23%
23%
27%
23%
3%
Brokerage Size
% of segment respondents selecting each response option
Segment (n)
Stable
Softening or slowing
Challenging
Strong and improving
Highly uncertain
1–24 (81)
32%
25%
20%
17%
5%
None-Just Myself (52)
50%
14%
15%
14%
2%
25–99 (9)
22%
11%
22%
33%
11%
T3 Sixty
Broker–MLS Market Intelligence Survey
Premium Report | March 2026
Q12 — Business Climate: Sentiment Analysis & Comments
Sentiment Summary
Broker sentiment about current market conditions reflects a market in transition. The largest share of respondents (29 percent) described conditions as Stable, while 30 percent characterized the market as Softening or Challenging — a meaningful combined signal of uncertainty. 12 percent described the market as Strong and Improving. Open-ended comments cited limited inventory, elevated insurance costs, interest rate headwinds, and macroeconomic uncertainty as primary factors affecting brokerage business. A notable subtheme was the impact of commission structure changes, with some brokers noting that their reliance on MLS cooperation is evolving. Despite the headwinds, most respondents indicated that people still need housing and that their brokerage continues to operate — a resilient if cautious posture.
T3 Sixty
Broker–MLS Market Intelligence Survey
Premium Report | March 2026
Q13 — MLS Evolution
Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements regarding how the MLS is evolving.
MLS is Evolving Appropriately — % Agree or Strongly Agree
Evolving Appropriately — Geographic Footprint
83.2%
Evolving Appropriately — Technology
84.8%
% of valid respondents (No Opinion excluded)
Response Distribution by Respondent Demographics
Raw percentage responses by segment. No benchmark scoring applied.
Brokerage Type
% Agree or Strongly Agree per item (No Opinion excluded)
Segment (n)
Evolving Appropriately —…
Evolving Appropriately —…
Independent Brokerage (174)
85%
83%
Franchisee Office (12)
86%
100%
National Brokerage Brand/Franchisor (7)
60%
40%
Regional Brokerage Group (6)
100%
100%
Broker Role
% Agree or Strongly Agree per item (No Opinion excluded)
Segment (n)
Evolving Appropriately —…
Evolving Appropriately —…
Broker-Owner (128)
84%
84%
Broker-Sales Person (15)
100%
92%
Broker-Manager (7)
80%
67%
Number of MLSs
% Agree or Strongly Agree per item (No Opinion excluded)
Segment (n)
Evolving Appropriately —…
Evolving Appropriately —…
One (91)
96%
92%
Two (34)
64%
75%
Three or more (30)
74%
67%
Brokerage Size
% Agree or Strongly Agree per item (No Opinion excluded)
Brokers expressed strong confidence in MetroList's directional evolution, with 85 percent agreeing the MLS is evolving appropriately from a technology perspective and 83 percent agreeing on geographic footprint. These are meaningfully positive readings that suggest MetroList's strategic trajectory is broadly endorsed by its membership. Open-ended responses added nuance: brokers generally support the direction of evolution but want to see execution keep pace. Requests for expanded geographic coverage — including integration with adjacent markets like Truckee/Tahoe and Tuolumne County — were the most common specific suggestions. A small but consistent subset expressed a preference for a unified statewide MLS model as the ultimate end state.
Key Themes
Technology Evolution Is Broadly Endorsed With Execution Expectations — Brokers generally support MetroList's technology direction but want execution to keep pace — several noted that basic integration and core service quality should be the priority before new features are layered on.
Geographic Expansion Requests Are Specific and Regionally Focused — The most common expansion request was integration with the Truckee/Tahoe corridor, with additional sentiment favoring a unified statewide MLS model as the logical long-term end state.
Platform Integration Matters More Than Feature Addition — Respondents emphasized wanting documents, tools, and services to function under a single cohesive platform rather than as disconnected additions — reflecting a desire for simplicity and seamlessness over breadth.
Sample Comments
"I am not sure I understand the question."
"Hard to say with AI and things changing so fast. We should have all data in CA"
"I'm happy to see Rapattoni partnering with other local MLS's."
"From a geographic footprint--I appreciate that data from a broad geographic area is available through MLS. Evolving appropriately from a technology perspective--again I feel the "technology" could be better."
"Our service area is huge. Because of the residential lean, we don't data from the entire commercial area which is more than 1 county."
"We don’t need expansion of existing MLS as we need one MLS for the entire state"
"Mls and all docs should function under one platform"
"Basic service first and better integration"
"Need to expant to Trukee/Tahoe area."
T3 Sixty
Broker–MLS Market Intelligence Survey
Premium Report | March 2026
Q14 — Marketplace Model
The MLS should consider offering a marketplace model where certain add-on tools are optional and priced based on usage rather than included for all subscribers. (Select your level of agreement)
Marketplace Model — Optional/Usage-Priced Tools
Strongly Agree
21.3%
Strongly Disagree
22.0%
No Opinion
22.8%
Disagree
26.8%
Agree
29.9%
% of valid respondents (No Opinion excluded)
Response Distribution by Respondent Demographics
Raw percentage responses by segment. No benchmark scoring applied.
Opinions on a marketplace model for optional, usage-priced add-on tools were closely divided, with 51 percent agreeing and 49 percent disagreeing among those who expressed a view. This near-even split reflects a genuine tension in the broker community between those who want flexibility and those who value the equality of a flat-subscription model. Open-ended responses from both camps were instructive: proponents wanted to stop paying for tools they do not use, while opponents expressed concern about creating a two-tiered system where high-volume brokerages pay more for the same access. The principle of equal access — regardless of brokerage size or production volume — emerged as a core value that any future marketplace model would need to protect.
Key Themes
Equal Access Regardless of Brokerage Size Is a Non-Negotiable Principle — The most consistent message was that all subscribers — regardless of production volume or brokerage size — should have access to the same tools at the same cost, making variable or tiered pricing deeply unpopular.
Upselling and Cost Complexity Have Already Created Fatigue — Many respondents expressed fatigue with vendor-driven add-ons, indicating a strong preference for a simple, all-inclusive subscription model over an opt-in marketplace that requires additional purchasing decisions.
Optional Pricing Discourages Trial and Reduces Tool Adoption — Several respondents noted that if a feature requires an extra payment they will simply not use it — suggesting that optional pricing may actively reduce adoption of the very tools MetroList invests in deploying.
Platform Simplicity Should Precede Additional Offerings — A recurring theme was that MetroList already offers more tools than most members engage with, and that adding a marketplace layer compounds an existing complexity problem rather than solving it.
Data Feed Access Pricing Compounds Multi-MLS Subscriber Costs — Brokers subscribing to multiple MLSs for data feed access raised concerns about cost compounding, with some calling for an IDX-only membership tier that covers data without requiring payment for unused tools.
Sample Comments
"Please dont start."
"Not flexible for different type of listings!"
"You should focus the service we pay for, not upselling for others."
"You guys have so many offerings for various things, it actually becomes white. Noise and we don't even stop to see what they are. Let alone learn them, they basically all equate to a fourteen different ways to do the same thing"
"We already get nickel and dimed by all kinds of vendors I would not like that option"
"If it's optional, and I have to pay extra, I personally would be unlikely to ever try it. If it's already there, I'm much more likely to try it."
"making the platform into a menu has long term issues."
"Should be available for all paid users"
"Do not share data with Zillow and other giant platforms"
"Otherwise agents that produce more will have to pay more because theyll be the ones using it. Slower agents shouldnt have a pass and producing agents pickup the tab for bringing in new products."
"We should all benefit the same from our subscription fees"
"If this is referring to a very little brokerage as I have stated considering a small company"
"One of the principles to me about MLS is that irregardless of the size of a brokerage or the volume of business that an agent does, the same opportunities and costs are available to everyone equally."
"Metrolist seems to be a good value for what it offers. I dont see how it could be broken down into smaller cost segregation"
"I have to subscribe to five MLS is just to get my data so I don’t appreciate having to pay for extra tools that I don’t even use. You should have an ID X only membership, where I only have to pay for the data feed."
"Not sure how this would improve or benifit agents"
"I tbelieve this question depends on what add-ons you are referring to."
"Having everyone with the same price and tools is better."
"The cost of these services will never be fair and will distract from top notch core service that should be the focus"
"I don’t like the idea of add-on pricing, but I also don’t like paying for a bunch of random third-party benefits that do not help us at all. For example, rental beast gives us zero value."
T3 Sixty
Broker–MLS Market Intelligence Survey
Premium Report | March 2026
Q15 — Subscription Data Access
With appropriate safeguards for brokers, the MLS should consider offering subscription-based data access to complementary industries such as mortgage, insurance, and title. (Select your level of agreement)
Subscription Data Access for Complementary Industries
Strongly Agree
9.8%
Agree
27.0%
Disagree
27.0%
No Opinion
27.0%
Strongly Disagree
36.1%
% of valid respondents (No Opinion excluded)
Response Distribution by Respondent Demographics
Raw percentage responses by segment. No benchmark scoring applied.
Brokerage Type
% Agree or Strongly Agree (No Opinion excluded)
Independent Brokerage
n=174
36%
Franchisee Office
n=12
29%
National Brokerage Brand/Franchisor
n=7
40%
Regional Brokerage Group
n=6
50%
Broker Role
% Agree or Strongly Agree (No Opinion excluded)
Broker-Owner
n=128
37%
Broker-Sales Person
n=15
33%
Broker-Manager
n=7
50%
Number of MLSs
% Agree or Strongly Agree (No Opinion excluded)
One
n=91
37%
Two
n=34
33%
Three or more
n=30
41%
Brokerage Size
% Agree or Strongly Agree (No Opinion excluded)
1–24
n=81
32%
None-Just Myself
n=52
43%
25–99
n=9
29%
T3 Sixty
Broker–MLS Market Intelligence Survey
Premium Report | March 2026
Q15 — Subscription Data Access: Sentiment Analysis & Comments
Sentiment Summary
Subscription-based data access for complementary industries such as mortgage, insurance, and title was the most contentious strategic question in the survey, with 37 percent of respondents in agreement — the lowest agreement rate of any strategic question asked. Open-ended comments reflect deep concern about data sovereignty, with many brokers viewing third-party data monetization as a conflict of interest that benefits the MLS at the expense of broker-owned data. Respondents who were more open to the idea generally cited potential MLS revenue as a benefit that could be passed on to members. MetroList should approach this question with significant caution and extensive broker consultation before any policy changes are considered.
Key Themes
Data Sovereignty and Broker Ownership Are Core Concerns — Respondents expressed strong resistance to monetizing broker-owned listing data for third-party industries, with several viewing it as a conflict of interest that prioritizes MLS revenue over the interests of the brokers who generate the data.
Financial Transparency Would Be Required Before Support Could Grow — Several respondents asked directly where subscription revenue currently goes, indicating that any new revenue model involving third-party data access would require clear accounting of how funds benefit the membership.
Some Openness Exists If Benefits Flow Back to Members — A minority of respondents were open to the concept if it generated meaningful revenue that reduced member costs or improved services — framing it as potentially acceptable if the economics were transparent and equitable.
Focus on Core MLS Execution Before Exploring Data Monetization — The most common objection was one of timing: respondents argued MetroList should sharpen its core MLS execution and platform quality before exploring new revenue models that could distract from service delivery.
Sample Comments
"Fixed price subscription in total. No extra fees for add ons"
"Stick to what has worked."
"Quit trying to sell our data. If you need to raise funds to make this platform something remotely close to this century than we have bigger problems. Meaning somebody is mishandling are funds or our membership is so low.We don't even have the funds."
"MLS should be simple"
"How much money is involved and where does it go?"
"For what reason?"
"No access to our information"
"Not sure - It seems like they already have access to a lot of our data..."
"We live in the Information Age. Data will become available to everyone eventually and if Metrolist can generate additional revenue by being a data provider it would be silly not to do so."
"The sharing of data with other industries is a invitation to mis use"
"I have no problem with sharing the data but if they want access they should be members."
"I am not sure on what other professions should be allowed to use the data. Costar is an exmaple. THey are very expensive and selective"
"This is the whole reason why our industry is being destabilizes because the MLS’s make money off of selling our data to the portals and other vendors that are more technologically advanced than the realtors that owned the data"
"I would like to learn more about this and its ramifications."
"Why offer the information or why not...zillow, redfin offers a lot of information and there is not cost. What is MLS's secret sauce."
"Stay focus on MLS"
"I think Metrolist should just focus on MLS."
T3 Sixty
Broker–MLS Market Intelligence Survey
Premium Report | March 2026
Q16 — Expanded Property Data
If structured in a way that supports broker value, the MLS should expand its role to include broader property data such as rentals, commercial, FSBO. (Select your level of agreement)
Expanded Property Data Role (Rentals, Commercial, FSBO)
No Opinion
7.6%
Strongly Disagree
11.8%
Disagree
13.9%
Strongly Agree
25.7%
Agree
48.6%
% of valid respondents (No Opinion excluded)
Response Distribution by Respondent Demographics
Raw percentage responses by segment. No benchmark scoring applied.
Expanding MetroList's property data scope to include rentals, commercial listings, and FSBOs received broad support, with 74 percent of brokers agreeing — the highest agreement rate among the three strategic expansion questions. Commercial and rental expansion were viewed most favorably, with multiple respondents noting that platforms such as CoStar and Crexi have established significant commercial data footholds — making this an area where early MetroList investment would be well-received. FSBO inclusion was more divisive, with several respondents expressing concern that it would undermine broker value. The overall signal is clear: brokers want MetroList to compete more fully for the broad real estate data market, particularly in commercial, but want FSBO handled with care.
Key Themes
Commercial Expansion Is the Most Broadly Supported Priority — Support for commercial data was consistent and specific, with multiple respondents citing CoStar's high cost and Crexi's emerging dominance as evidence that MetroList is missing a significant and time-sensitive market opportunity.
Rental Data Expansion Draws Strong Support with Few Objections — Rental data expansion received broad support with minimal opposition, largely framed as a natural extension of MLS functionality that would increase member utility without creating competitive tension within the broker community.
FSBO Inclusion Faces Meaningful and Principled Broker Opposition — FSBO expansion was the most divisive element in this question, with several respondents concerned it would undermine buyer-agent value, create enforcement complications, and blur the professional boundaries of MLS participation.
Executing the Current Data Scope Well Must Come First — A subset of respondents cautioned against adding new data categories before improving the quality, usability, and analytics capabilities of existing data — reflecting the consistent core-first sentiment across the survey.
Sample Comments
"Commercial and land"
"We need to compete with Zillow"
"MLS Should NOT include FSBO data"
"Commercial yes, rentals yes, not FSBO"
"Rentals, Commercial only. Not FSBO's"
"I would like commercial to be included and done so professionally"
"FSBO could be challenging in MLS for buyers agents"
"Again, someone will figure out a way to do this and provide a better service. Frankly I think MLS should have done this a long time ago. Others will do it and MLS will get left behind or maybe already have. Check out Zillow, for example, and see if this isn't already a reality with them as well as others."
"The MLS should have a expand into allthings that realtors and do. It should really try to compete with costar. The Loopnet / Costar system is very expensive and not very easy to use"
"MLS has missed the commercial opportunity several years ago. CoStar is failing, Crexi is now king"
"What about better stats on the current data before adding half bake additional services"
T3 Sixty
Broker–MLS Market Intelligence Survey
Premium Report | March 2026
Q17 — Investment Priorities
What are the top three pain points your brokerage experiences with the MLS or MLS-provided technologies? (Select up to three)
Top Investment and Improvement Priorities
Communication gaps
3.4%
Data quality or accuracy
6.4%
Cost or perceived lack of value
8.8%
Integration with brokerage systems
9.8%
Lack of broker-specific features
9.8%
Technology not keeping pace
13.2%
Training or broker-focused support
13.7%
Compliance requirements are burdensome
17.6%
None of the Above
23.5%
Platform usability or complexity
27.0%
% of Respondents (up to 3 selections)
Response Distribution by Respondent Demographics
Raw percentage responses by segment. No benchmark scoring applied.
Brokerage Type
% of segment respondents selecting each response option
Segment (n)
Platform usability or co…
Training or broker-focus…
Technology not keeping p…
Cost or perceived lack o…
Compliance requirements …
Independent Brokerage (174)
27%
13%
13%
9%
17%
Franchisee Office (12)
17%
25%
8%
17%
33%
National Brokerage Brand/Franchisor (7)
57%
14%
29%
14%
29%
Regional Brokerage Group (6)
17%
33%
33%
0%
17%
Broker Role
% of segment respondents selecting each response option
Segment (n)
Platform usability or co…
Training or broker-focus…
Technology not keeping p…
Compliance requirements …
Lack of broker-specific …
Broker-Owner (128)
34%
15%
16%
23%
10%
Broker-Sales Person (15)
40%
40%
7%
13%
40%
Broker-Manager (7)
43%
43%
29%
43%
14%
Number of MLSs
% of segment respondents selecting each response option
Segment (n)
Platform usability or co…
Training or broker-focus…
Technology not keeping p…
Compliance requirements …
Lack of broker-specific …
One (91)
37%
21%
11%
18%
11%
Two (34)
35%
9%
21%
24%
12%
Three or more (30)
27%
20%
33%
40%
20%
Brokerage Size
% of segment respondents selecting each response option
Platform usability or complexity was the most commonly cited pain point among broker respondents, selected by 27 percent — the highest rate by a significant margin over the next most common item. Compliance requirements (18 percent) and broker training access (14 percent) followed, alongside technology keeping pace with market needs (13 percent). Notably, 24 percent selected 'None of the Above,' indicating that roughly one in four respondents does not experience a significant pain point with the MLS — a positive signal that should not be overlooked. The pain point data reinforces the technology category scores: brokers are most frustrated with how hard the platform is to use, not with the underlying data or the people behind the service.
Key Themes
Mobile Experience Is the Single Most Cited Usability Failure — Multiple respondents described the mobile site and app as insufficient for field use — with tax record access, search functionality, and client-facing features all falling short of what agents need when working with buyers and sellers on-site.
Specific Platform Friction Points Are Well-Known and Persistent — The dual login system, repetitive AI photo review prompts, and frequent map errors were cited by multiple respondents as concrete, persistent examples of avoidable friction that have not been resolved despite broker feedback.
Platform Complexity Is Undermining Usability for Smaller Operators — Several respondents noted that the sheer volume of data and tools has become overwhelming, particularly for smaller brokerages and newer agents — simplification and better onboarding were the most common practical suggestions.
Training and Education Gaps Remain for Brokers and Small Teams — Minimum attendance requirements, limited small-office access, and the absence of robust broker-specific content were cited as gaps that make it harder for smaller operators to fully leverage the platform.
Compliance Rules and Enforcement Consistency Need Attention — Open-ended responses reinforced Q5 findings on enforcement — brokers want clearer rules, more consistent application, and better advance communication about compliance changes rather than reactive notification after the fact.
Sample Comments
"I hate the difficulty of using mobile site. some low producing agents have difficulty with the cost of all subscriptions"
"I am not sure I fully understand what you are asking"
"I would like to see more data for the entire state"
"We are a very small brokerage. Metrolist states that you need 5 people in order for them to come to your office for training."
"The MLS neutralizes brand advantages and provides tools, services and support that competes with the medium and large brokers. This opportunity was inadvertently funded by the larger brokers."
"Should not let zillow have our information"
"The amount of data is overwhelming. (It's also a good thing.) I don't know how to make it any easier to use. I think generally Rapattoni does a very good job. However, the amount of data is still overwhelming."
"I need to have a better understanding of how brokers like Compass are staying compliant with MLS regulations and their off market listing promotions"
"I had 2 prior websites where Metrolist didnt feed. I also have issues with the agent-consumer apps like homespotter and prior homesnap. we need a better agent-branded app. 4th item- broker training"
"Really need a stronger app. Also would help if the app would have better tie in to the tax records"
"Terrible support and enforcement. And bring back map reports. WTH?"
"Lack of coverage for entire county."
"The lock box issue is tough. I have to use combo's and supras becasue i need to bring in people all the time. We need a combo / supra box so i only need one box. Most agents would proabbyl agree. Lets say I need to send out a handman to strap a water heater. THey need combo box access, and agetns need supra acccess."
"In the new world of artificial intelligence data is King and MLS data is a disaster"
"Class offerings used to be more robust. I recall a "season pass" where I could send agents to most classes for a one-time flat fee. I'd like to see that return."
"While I appreciate and support enforcement, sometimes the rules don't seem to make sense."
"Usability errors, Map mode constantly has errors or "something went wrong" regardless of browser or computer used."
"Re: Lack of broker-specific features, I may be missing this so if there are, I am not seeing. I always think understanding the value of"
"I find the dual login system a huge pain. I do not like the new AI photo tool because it keeps analysing the same photos and I have to say NO to the items it finds over and over."
"Cumbersome format and not intuitive"
"Having to be a subscriber to two different MLS providers in the NorCal Alliance to get the required results. One of the fundamental benefits of the Alliance is still not being realized"
T3 Sixty
Broker–MLS Market Intelligence Survey
Premium Report | March 2026
Additional Comments and Open-Ended Responses
Sentiment Summary
The open-ended responses to the final survey question reflect a broadly positive and constructive tone. The majority of brokers who submitted comments expressed genuine appreciation for MetroList's data tools, accessibility, and human support — with several noting that the MLS is a mission-critical resource their business could not function without. Critical feedback was focused and specific rather than broadly negative: brokers called for tighter focus on core services, cost discipline in a challenging market, continued investment in platform usability, and a refresh of training and education offerings.
Key Themes
Stay Focused on Core Services and Pricing Discipline — Multiple respondents urged MetroList to prioritize its fundamental value proposition over expansion initiatives, with particular concern about cost for entry-level agents and smaller brokerages in a challenging market.
Strong Appreciation for Data, Tools and Human Accessibility — A significant portion of respondents praised data access, tools like TrendVision and Cloud CMA, and the ability to reach a real person — with human accessibility cited as an increasingly rare and valued differentiator.
Platform Usability and Tool Enhancement Requests — Search setup for client-facing workflows, communication around platform changes, and demand for branded agent-shareable market data tools emerged as the most frequently mentioned areas for improvement.
Training and Education Investment — Several respondents noted that class offerings have declined in breadth compared to prior years, with specific requests to restore a flat-fee season-pass model for cost-effective training access.
Sample Comments
"Stay focused on core value to members in this current market. Costs are getting out of reach for entry level agents and brokerages."
"Stick to basics and do it well. I feel Metrolist is trying to expand into other branches yet the basics are not laser sharp."
"Nope — Metrolist is doing a great job for those of us in the field."
"It would be helpful if Realist supplied additional data, such as divorces and tax liens, etc."
"More data sharing with MLS's throughout the entire state."
"I wish MetroList could take over the Tulumne County or TCAR system."
"MetroList should focus on core services and be very price sensitive to our agents."
"Do not allow Zillow or any other of their kind access to our information."
"Your platform is great, but setting up searches for clients could be improved, and communication about changes and training could be improved."
"More personal support — don't depend so heavily on AI."
"Agents constantly want market data interpreted for them and able to share with clients and social media. Branded market tools would be very helpful."
"Bring back map reports, make realtors report concessions accurately, enforce lockbox guidelines, provide good customer support."
"The MLS committee should have a commercial member as part of that committee."
"I like that training is occasionally presented at local CAR marketing meetings."
"Pleased with performance and communication."
"I think you're doing what you're supposed to do. It's the market itself that causes challenges for brokers."
"I love that we have lots of tools available and incorporated to Metrolist like Cloud CMA, Realist and more. As a broker I enjoy the ability to look up production."
"I particularly like having easy access to County property tax records, cordial tech support, and a basic confidence in the data."
"Generally it is possible to speak to a real person when I call Metrolist for help. This is becoming a rare and unusual quality in today's world."
T3 Sixty
Broker–MLS Market Intelligence Survey
Premium Report | March 2026
Respondent Demographics
The survey received 204 complete responses from MetroList® Services broker members across the Northern California Central Valley service area. The response pool represents a broad cross-section of the MetroList broker community, spanning all brokerage organization types, a range of brokerage sizes, and multiple broker roles. T3 Sixty collected responses in early 2026 as part of the National Broker–MLS Market Intelligence Benchmarking Survey program.
Organization / Brokerage Type
Category
Count
%
Independent Brokerage
174
85.3%
Franchisee Office
12
5.9%
National Brokerage Brand/Franchisor
7
3.4%
Regional Brokerage Group
6
2.9%
Other
5
2.5%
Number of Licensed Agents
Category
Count
%
None-Just Myself
52
33.5%
1–24
81
52.3%
25–99
9
5.8%
100–199
4
2.6%
200-499
4
2.6%
500–999
2
1.3%
1,000 or more
3
1.9%
Respondent Role
Category
Count
%
Broker-Owner
128
82.6%
Broker-Sales Person
15
9.7%
Broker-Manager
7
4.5%
Brokekr-Realtor
1
0.6%
Team leader
1
0.6%
agent
1
0.6%
Number of MLSs Subscribed
Category
Count
%
One
91
58.7%
Three or more
30
19.4%
Two
34
21.9%
Organization Note: Independent brokerages dominate the MetroList subscriber base, representing 87 percent of respondents. Franchisee offices (6 percent), national brokerage brands/franchisors (4 percent) and regional brokerage groups (3 percent) account for the remainder. This heavy independent concentration is consistent with MetroList's market geography and suggests that the survey results are most representative of small-to-mid-sized independent operator perspectives — a group that places particular value on cost efficiency, core MLS functionality, and equitable access regardless of brokerage size.
Agent Count Note: The respondent base skews strongly toward smaller brokerages: 25 percent report operating with no agents beyond themselves, 40 percent have 1–24 agents, and 4 percent have 100 or more active agents. This size distribution reflects the composition of MetroList's participant base and means T3 Sixty recommends reading the survey results primarily through a small-brokerage lens. It also reinforces the themes around cost sensitivity, usability simplicity, and the importance of flat-fee pricing that appeared consistently across open-ended responses.
Role Note: Broker-Owners account for 83 percent of respondents — a strong signal that the survey captured the most engaged and influential segment of the MetroList broker membership. Broker-Sales Persons (10 percent) and Broker-Managers (5 percent) round out the respondent population. The high concentration of Broker-Owners ensures that the results reflect the perspectives of individuals who have both the most at stake in MLS performance and the clearest view of how MetroList's services translate into brokerage business outcomes.
T3 Sixty
Broker–MLS Market Intelligence Survey
Premium Report | March 2026
Cross-Tabulation by Brokerage TypeWeighted T3 Score by Performance Category · Segmented by Brokerage Type
Category Scores by Brokerage Type
4.003.503.002.50
3.48
3.31
3.38
3.14
3.35
3.18
2.90
3.05
3.44
3.32
3.50
3.08
3.22
2.83
3.06
2.96
3.14
2.96
2.73
2.88
Satisfaction & Value
Support & Services
Data
Technology
Partnership & Trust
Independent Brokerage
Franchisee Office
Regional Brokerage Group
National Brokerage Brand/Franchisor
T3 Scores for each respondent segment. Cell shading = T3 rating tier. Overall column is the benchmark reference.
Question / Category
Overalln=204
Independent Brokerage
Franchisee Office
Regional Brokerage Group
National Brokerage Brand/Franchisor
1. Satisfaction and Value
Q2 — Overall Satisfaction
3.27
3.31
3.12
3.00
2.71
Q3 — Business Importance
3.64
3.64
3.50
3.75
3.57
2. Support and Services
Q5 — Support & Services
3.45
3.47
3.38
3.00
3.43
3. Data
Q6 — Data Quality
3.43
3.43
3.38
3.50
3.14
4. Technology
Q7 — Technology & Tools
3.14
3.18
2.88
3.00
2.83
5. Partnership and Trust
Q8 — Partnership Statements
3.38
3.43
3.00
3.00
3.00
Q9 — Data Governance
3.13
3.14
3.17
3.00
2.86
Q10 — Technology Confidence
3.13
3.17
3.00
2.67
2.57
T3 Rating Scale:
Exceptional
Superior
Good
Average
Deficient
T3 Sixty
Broker–MLS Market Intelligence Survey
Premium Report | March 2026
Cross-Tabulation by Broker RoleWeighted T3 Score by Performance Category · Segmented by Broker Role
Category Scores by Broker Role
4.003.503.002.50
3.50
3.14
3.40
3.37
3.03
3.18
3.45
3.34
3.37
3.22
2.85
3.32
3.15
2.94
3.21
Satisfaction & Value
Support & Services
Data
Technology
Partnership & Trust
Broker-Owner
Broker-Manager
Broker-Sales Person
T3 Scores for each respondent segment. Cell shading = T3 rating tier. Overall column is the benchmark reference.
Question / Category
Overalln=204
Broker-Owner
Broker-Manager
Broker-Sales Person
1. Satisfaction and Value
Q2 — Overall Satisfaction
3.27
3.36
3.00
3.07
Q3 — Business Importance
3.64
3.64
3.29
3.73
2. Support and Services
Q5 — Support & Services
3.45
3.48
3.14
3.50
3. Data
Q6 — Data Quality
3.43
3.45
3.43
3.33
4. Technology
Q7 — Technology & Tools
3.14
3.18
2.86
3.36
5. Partnership and Trust
Q8 — Partnership Statements
3.38
3.40
3.50
3.29
Q9 — Data Governance
3.13
3.17
2.86
3.33
Q10 — Technology Confidence
3.13
3.17
2.86
3.31
T3 Rating Scale:
Exceptional
Superior
Good
Average
Deficient
T3 Sixty
Broker–MLS Market Intelligence Survey
Premium Report | March 2026
Cross-Tabulation by Number of MLSsWeighted T3 Score by Performance Category · Segmented by Number of MLSs
Category Scores by Number of MLSs
4.003.503.002.50
3.64
3.22
3.22
3.44
3.29
3.04
3.53
3.41
3.16
3.41
2.99
2.81
3.35
2.90
2.76
Satisfaction & Value
Support & Services
Data
Technology
Partnership & Trust
One
Two
Three or more
T3 Scores for each respondent segment. Cell shading = T3 rating tier. Overall column is the benchmark reference.
Question / Category
Overalln=204
One
Two
Three or more
1. Satisfaction and Value
Q2 — Overall Satisfaction
3.27
3.49
3.06
2.97
Q3 — Business Importance
3.64
3.80
3.38
3.47
2. Support and Services
Q5 — Support & Services
3.45
3.52
3.47
3.32
3. Data
Q6 — Data Quality
3.43
3.55
3.39
3.14
4. Technology
Q7 — Technology & Tools
3.14
3.39
2.91
2.75
5. Partnership and Trust
Q8 — Partnership Statements
3.38
3.55
3.26
3.03
Q9 — Data Governance
3.13
3.36
2.94
2.86
Q10 — Technology Confidence
3.13
3.41
2.82
2.71
T3 Rating Scale:
Exceptional
Superior
Good
Average
Deficient
T3 Sixty
Broker–MLS Market Intelligence Survey
Premium Report | March 2026
Cross-Tabulation by Brokerage Size (Agents)Weighted T3 Score by Performance Category · Segmented by Brokerage Size (Agents)
Category Scores by Brokerage Size (Agents)
4.003.503.002.50
3.65
3.46
3.28
3.12
2.62
3.75
2.83
3.56
3.27
3.48
2.95
2.50
3.40
2.67
3.56
3.43
3.12
3.00
3.17
4.00
2.92
3.46
3.17
2.97
2.94
2.44
3.38
1.88
3.41
3.07
2.86
3.01
2.42
3.26
2.28
Satisfaction & Value
Support & Services
Data
Technology
Partnership & Trust
None-Just Myself
1–24
25–99
100–199
200-499
500–999
1,000 or more
T3 Scores for each respondent segment. Cell shading = T3 rating tier. Overall column is the benchmark reference.
Question / Category
Overalln=204
None-Just Myself
1–24
25–99
100–199
200-499
500–999
1,000 or more
1. Satisfaction and Value
Q2 — Overall Satisfaction
3.27
3.60
3.24
3.11
3.00
2.25
4.00
2.00
Q3 — Business Importance
3.64
3.70
3.68
3.44
3.25
3.00
3.50
3.67
2. Support and Services
Q5 — Support & Services
3.45
3.61
3.42
3.50
3.25
2.50
4.00
3.67
3. Data
Q6 — Data Quality
3.43
3.57
3.42
3.11
3.00
3.25
4.00
3.00
4. Technology
Q7 — Technology & Tools
3.14
3.43
3.12
2.88
3.00
2.25
3.00
2.00
5. Partnership and Trust
Q8 — Partnership Statements
3.38
3.62
3.33
3.22
3.00
3.00
3.50
2.33
Q9 — Data Governance
3.13
3.39
3.10
2.88
3.00
2.67
3.50
2.67
Q10 — Technology Confidence
3.13
3.48
3.11
2.56
3.33
2.00
3.00
2.00
T3 Rating Scale:
Exceptional
Superior
Good
Average
Deficient
Appendix A — T3 Scoring Methodology · Page 1 of 2
T3 Sixty
Broker–MLS Market Intelligence Survey
Premium Report | March 2026
Appendix A · T3 Scoring Methodology
Overview
The T3 Score is a composite performance metric derived from broker responses to the Broker–MLS Market Intelligence Survey. Each participating broker rates their MLS across five performance categories using a four-point satisfaction or agreement scale. Individual question scores are averaged into category scores, which are then averaged equally into a single Overall Composite T3 Score ranging from 1.00 to 4.00. Scores are benchmarked against all participating MLS organizations nationally and tracked year-over-year for MLS clients that commission the survey on a recurring basis. This appendix documents the full scoring framework — the response scale, category formulas, and rating tiers — so that scores are fully transparent and reproducible.
Response Scale
All scored survey questions use a four-point scale. Responses are converted to numeric values as shown below. No Opinion responses are excluded from score calculations.
Response Option
Numeric Value
Notes
Very Satisfied / Strongly Agree
4
Satisfied / Agree
3
Dissatisfied / Disagree
2
Very Dissatisfied / Strongly Disagree
1
No Opinion
—
Excluded from all calculations
T3 Rating Tiers
Every T3 Score — category or overall — maps to one of five performance tiers based on the thresholds below.
Five categories contribute equally to the Overall Composite T3 Score. Each category score is the mean of its constituent question scores, as defined below.
Category
Questions
Score Formula
1 · Overall Satisfaction
Q2, Q3
Mean of Q2 (Overall Satisfaction) + Q3 (Net Promoter proxy — recommend to colleague)
2 · Core MLS Services
Q5
Mean of all Q5 component items (MLS data quality, listing tools, search functionality, etc.)
3 · Member Support & Communication
Q6
Mean of all Q6 component items (responsiveness, staff helpfulness, communication clarity, etc.)
4 · Education & Resources
Q7
Mean of all Q7 component items (training quality, resource availability, onboarding support, etc.)
5 · Governance & Industry Leadership
Q8, Q9, Q10, Q11
Mean of: Q8 Partnership Statements mean + Q9 (Data Governance Confidence) + Q10 (Technology Confidence) + Q11 Governance Statements mean.Q8 items: MLS as Partner · Trust in Decision-Making · Input & Representation · Q11 items: Manages Data Responsibly · Operations are Transparent
Overall Composite T3 Score
Simple mean of the five category scores (equal weighting)
Equal Weighting: No category is weighted more heavily than another. The Overall Composite T3 Score is calculated as the arithmetic mean of all five category scores. This approach ensures that strengths in one area cannot fully offset weaknesses in another, providing a balanced view of overall MLS performance.
Appendix A — T3 Scoring Methodology · Page 2 of 2
T3 Sixty
Broker–MLS Market Intelligence Survey
Premium Report | March 2026
Appendix A · Worked Example & Benchmarking Framework
Worked Example — Score Calculation
The following example traces a hypothetical respondent set through the full scoring chain — from raw survey responses to the final Overall Composite T3 Score and rating tier.
Overall Composite T3 Score Mean of 5 category scores: (3.50 + 3.15 + 3.40 + 2.90 + 3.28) ÷ 5 Superior — 3.25 to 3.49
Note on “No Opinion” exclusions: Respondents selecting No Opinion are excluded from that question's score only. Their responses to other questions are included normally. This prevents a single non-response from inflating or deflating any category score.
National Benchmarking Methodology
T3 Sixty maintains a national benchmark database drawn from all MLS organizations that participate in the Broker–MLS Market Intelligence Survey program. Benchmarks are reported at both the overall composite and individual category level.
National Benchmark Score = Arithmetic mean of the T3 Scores across all participating MLS organizations for the current benchmark period. Each MLS contributes one composite score, preventing large-membership organizations from dominating the benchmark through respondent volume.
Benchmark Calculation — Year-by-Year Approach
Years 1–3: Rolling Accumulation
During the initial years of the national program, each annual benchmark incorporates all available survey cohorts as the participant pool grows. The benchmark widens with each new cohort, providing increasingly representative national norms. Variance is expected to stabilize as participation expands.
Year 4+: Two-Year Rolling Average
Once the program matures, the national benchmark is calculated as a two-year rolling average — combining scores from the current survey year and the immediately preceding year. This approach smooths single-year volatility while keeping the benchmark current and responsive to market shifts.
Appendix B — Survey Question Reference
T3 Sixty
Broker–MLS Market Intelligence Survey
Premium Report | March 2026
Appendix B · Survey Question Reference
Standardized Scoring Questions
The following questions are part of the national benchmarking framework and generate T3 Scores. Question wording is standardized across all MLS participants; [MLS Name] is substituted per client.
Q2 — Overall, how satisfied are you with the recent performance of MetroList® Services?
Q3 — How important is MetroList® Services to the overall success of your brokerage business?
Q5 — Please indicate your level of satisfaction with the following MLS support and services provided by MetroList® Services.
Q6 — Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements about MLS data provided by MetroList® Services.
Q7 — Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements about MLS technologies and tools provided by MetroList® Services.
Q8 — Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements about your relationship with MetroList® Services.
Q9 — I am confident in how MetroList® Services governs, protects, and utilizes listing data on behalf of brokers.
Q10 — I am confident that the MLS’s technologies and tools are designed, selected, and managed in ways that support my brokerage’s business needs.
Q11 — Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements about how the MLS governs data and makes decisions about technology and tools.
Local / Non-Standardized Custom Questions
The following questions provide local market context and MLS-specific intelligence. They do not contribute to T3 Score calculations.
Q4 — Which of the following describes how MetroList® Services primarily adds value to your brokerage?
Q12 — How would you characterize current real estate market conditions for your brokerage?
Q13 — Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements regarding how the MLS is evolving.
Q14 — The MLS should consider offering a marketplace model where certain add-on tools are optional and priced based on usage rather than included for all subscribers. (Select your level of agreement)
Q15 — With appropriate safeguards for brokers, the MLS should consider offering subscription-based data access to complementary industries such as mortgage, insurance, and title. (Select your level of agreement)
Q16 — If structured in a way that supports broker value, the MLS should expand its role to include broader property data such as rentals, commercial, FSBO. (Select your level of agreement)
Q17 — What are the top three pain points your brokerage experiences with the MLS or MLS-provided technologies? (Select up to three)
Demographic & Administrative Questions
Demo — Select your organization type. (Brokerage / organization type)
Demo — Number of active agents within your brokerage.
Demo — Which of the following best describes you? (Broker role)
Demo — How many MLSs does your brokerage subscribe to?
Q21 — Do you have any additional comments or suggestions for what your MLS should most focus on over the next year to better support brokers? (Open-ended)
Sample Comments