Get Access
Login
↓ Save as PDF
Broker–MLS Market Intelligence
Benchmarking
Report
MetroList® MLS
2026 Survey Results · March 2026
Overall Composite Score
3.31
Superior
n = 204 respondents
1.0–4.0 scale
Prepared by T3 Sixty · March 2026
Confidential for Internal Use Only
Broker–MLS Market Intelligence Survey
Premium Report | March 2026
Report Contents

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
MetroList® ServicesConfidential for Internal Use OnlyPage 2
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.
Survey Methodology: 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. Survey sample: n = 204 respondents. Scores on a 1.0–4.0 scale. T3 Sixty ratings assigned based on national thresholds.
MetroList® ServicesConfidential for Internal Use OnlyPage 3
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 CategoryT3 ScoreT3 RatingScore (1.0—4.0 scale)
1. Satisfaction and Value3.45Superior
1.02.03.04.0
2. Support and Services3.37Superior
1.02.03.04.0
3. Data3.42Superior
1.02.03.04.0
4. Technology3.17Good
1.02.03.04.0
5. Partnership and Trust3.13Good
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 Value3.45
Overall MLS Performance Satisfaction3.27
Business Importance to Members3.64
2. Support and Services3.37
Overall Support & Services Satisfaction3.45
MLS Communications3.38
Agent Support & Training3.32
Broker Support & Training3.27
Compliance & Rules Enforcement3.18
Q5 Component Average3.29
3. Data3.42
Overall Data Satisfaction3.43
Accuracy & Reliability3.47
Enables Agents with Data3.42
Accessible & Usable3.37
Q6 Component Average3.42
4. Technology3.17
Overall Technology Satisfaction3.14
Reliable Platform3.16
Enables Agents3.19
Accessible & Usable3.22
Q7 Component Average3.19
5. Partnership and Trust3.13
Partnership Statements (avg)3.11
MLS as Partner in Brokerage Success3.38
Trust in MLS Decision-Making3.03
Input & Representation Opportunities2.93
Data Governance Confidence3.13
Technology Confidence3.13
Governance Statements (avg)3.13
Data Benefit to Brokers3.23
Transparent about Data Sharing3.13
Long-term Decisions Align w/ Broker Interests3.11
MetroList® ServicesConfidential for Internal Use OnlyPage 4
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.

T3 Sixty Performance Rating Scale
Exceptional
3.50 – 4.00
Top-tier performance; a model for the industry
Superior
3.25 – 3.49
Meaningfully above average; strong broker confidence
Good
3.00 – 3.24
At or near average; solid foundation with room to improve
Average
2.50 – 2.99
Below average; notable gaps in broker satisfaction
Deficient
1.00 – 2.49
Significant performance concerns requiring attention
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 CategoryContributing QuestionsScore Calculation
1. Satisfaction and ValueQ2, Q3Average of Q2 (Overall MLS Performance Satisfaction) and Q3 (Business Importance to Members).
2. Support and ServicesQ5Average of Q5 Overall score and the mean of Q5 component scores(Broker Support & Training · Agent Support & Training · Compliance & Rules Enforcement · MLS Communications)
3. DataQ6Average of Q6 Overall score and the mean of Q6 component scores(Accuracy & Reliability · Enables Agents with Data · Accessible & Usable)
4. TechnologyQ7Average of Q7 Overall score and the mean of Q7 component scores(Reliable Platform · Enables Agents · Accessible & Usable)
5. Partnership and TrustQ8, Q9, Q10, Q11Average 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 ScoreAll categoriesSimple average of all five category scores (Categories 1–5 weighted equally).
MetroList® ServicesConfidential for Internal Use OnlyPage 5
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.

Category2026 Score2026 RatingT3 Benchmark ComparableT3 Benchmark ScoreT3 Benchmark Rating
Overall3.31SuperiorBuildingBuildingBuilding
1. Satisfaction and Value3.45SuperiorBuildingBuildingBuilding
2. Support and Services3.37SuperiorBuildingBuildingBuilding
3. Data3.42SuperiorBuildingBuildingBuilding
4. Technology3.17GoodBuildingBuildingBuilding
5. Partnership and Trust3.13GoodBuildingBuildingBuilding

T3 and Local Benchmark Coding (applied when comparables data is available):

National Performance Comparables

TPTop PerformerHighest T3 scoring benchmark
EXExcelling0.05+ above T3 benchmark
COMCompetitiveWithin 0.04 above/below T3 benchmark
IOImprovement Opportunity0.05+ below T3 benchmark

Year over Year or Cohort Performance Comparables

EXExcelling0.05+ above the MLS’s scoring benchmark
COMCompetitiveWithin 0.04 above/below the MLS’s benchmark
IOImprovement Opportunity0.05+ 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.
MetroList® ServicesConfidential for Internal Use OnlyPage 6
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 Score2026 RatingT3 Broker BenchmarkT3 Benchmark Rating
3.27SuperiorBuilding—

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
CohortSegmentT3 ScoreT3 RatingComp
Brokerage TypeIndependent Brokerage3.31SuperiorCOM
Franchisee Office3.12GoodIO
Regional Brokerage Group3.00GoodIO
National Brokerage Brand/Franchisor2.71AverageIO
Broker RoleBroker-Owner3.36SuperiorEX
Broker-Manager3.00GoodIO
Broker-Sales Person3.07GoodIO
No. of MLSsOne3.49SuperiorEX
Two3.06GoodIO
Three or more2.97AverageIO
Brokerage SizeNone-Just Myself3.60ExceptionalEX
1–243.24GoodCOM
25–993.11GoodIO
100–1993.00GoodIO
200-4992.25DeficientIO
500–9994.00ExceptionalEX
1,000 or more2.00DeficientIO

Cohort: EX = Excelling (0.05+ above overall 3.27)  ·  COM = Competitive (within 0.04)  ·  IO = Improvement Opportunity (0.05+ below)

MetroList® ServicesConfidential for Internal Use OnlyPage 7
Broker–MLS Market Intelligence Survey
Premium Report | March 2026
1
Satisfaction and Value
Q2 — Overall Satisfaction

Sentiment Summary

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 Are Core Strengths
    • Multiple respondents cited the size and scope of MetroList's coverage area as a primary source of satisfaction.
    • Access to county tax records and integrated tools like TrendVision and Cloud CMA were frequently praised as concrete differentiators.
    • Brokers who have worked in the market for decades credited MetroList with growing into a powerful regional resource over time.
  • Platform Usability Remains the Primary Satisfaction Driver
    • The most common theme in satisfaction comments involved the platform experience — particularly on mobile — as a friction point.
    • Brokers noted that the platform has improved but that each enhancement has added complexity, making routine tasks more time-consuming than they should be.
    • Several respondents described the public-facing consumer portal as inferior to third-party sites like Zillow, which drives clients toward competing platforms.

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."
MetroList® ServicesConfidential for Internal Use OnlyPage 8
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"
MetroList® ServicesConfidential for Internal Use OnlyPage 9
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 Score2026 RatingT3 Broker BenchmarkT3 Benchmark Rating
3.64ExceptionalBuilding—

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
CohortSegmentT3 ScoreT3 RatingComp
Brokerage TypeIndependent Brokerage3.64ExceptionalCOM
Franchisee Office3.50ExceptionalIO
Regional Brokerage Group3.75ExceptionalEX
National Brokerage Brand/Franchisor3.57ExceptionalIO
Broker RoleBroker-Owner3.64ExceptionalCOM
Broker-Manager3.29SuperiorIO
Broker-Sales Person3.73ExceptionalEX
No. of MLSsOne3.80ExceptionalEX
Two3.38SuperiorIO
Three or more3.47SuperiorIO
Brokerage SizeNone-Just Myself3.70ExceptionalEX
1–243.68ExceptionalCOM
25–993.44SuperiorIO
100–1993.25SuperiorIO
200-4993.00GoodIO
500–9993.50ExceptionalIO
1,000 or more3.67ExceptionalCOM

Cohort: EX = Excelling (0.05+ above overall 3.64)  ·  COM = Competitive (within 0.04)  ·  IO = Improvement Opportunity (0.05+ below)

MetroList® ServicesConfidential for Internal Use OnlyPage 10
Broker–MLS Market Intelligence Survey
Premium Report | March 2026
1
Satisfaction and Value
Q3 — Business Importance

Sentiment Summary

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 Is the Non-Negotiable Core of Broker Business
    • Brokers consistently described MetroList data as the authoritative source of listing information — something that cannot be replicated by consumer portals.
    • Many cited cooperation with other brokers, CMAs, and agent productivity tools as entirely dependent on MLS access.
    • The ability to ensure maximum property visibility for sellers was highlighted as the core justification for MLS membership.
  • Competitive Pressures Are Creating Some Erosion at the Margins
    • A small but vocal subset of respondents questioned whether the MLS's value proposition is holding up against free consumer platforms.
    • Changes to buyer-agent compensation structures were mentioned as factors that may reduce the perceived importance of MLS cooperation over time.
    • Several respondents noted they subscribe primarily to satisfy data feed requirements, not because they actively use the platform daily.

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."
MetroList® ServicesConfidential for Internal Use OnlyPage 11
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."
MetroList® ServicesConfidential for Internal Use OnlyPage 12
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

  • Multiple Value Dimensions Are Recognized Simultaneously
    • The spread across technology, cooperative, and service categories suggests brokers experience MetroList differently depending on how they use it.
    • Larger brokerages tended to emphasize the technology and data platform dimensions, while smaller independents more frequently cited cooperative access and compliance services.
    • The integrated tool suite — Cloud CMA, Realist, TrendVision — was specifically cited as evidence of MetroList's multi-dimensional value.
  • Value Clarity Is a Growth Opportunity
    • While a small share selected 'value proposition is unclear,' qualitative comments suggest broader ambient skepticism about value-for-cost as platform complexity increases.
    • Several respondents described MetroList as a 'required' service rather than a chosen one — an important signal about perceived optionality in a changing market.
    • Clearer communication about what is included in membership, and why, would likely strengthen the value narrative across all segments.

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."
MetroList® ServicesConfidential for Internal Use OnlyPage 13
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."
MetroList® ServicesConfidential for Internal Use OnlyPage 14
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
ComponentScoreRatingScoreRating
T3 Benchmark
Category Score (Satisfaction + Components)3.37SuperiorBuilding—
Overall Satisfaction3.45SuperiorBuilding—
MLS Communications3.38SuperiorBuilding—
Agent Support and Agent-Focused Training3.32SuperiorBuilding—
Broker Support and Broker-Focused Training3.27SuperiorBuilding—
Compliance and Rules Enforcement3.18GoodBuilding—
Component Average3.29SuperiorBuilding—

Benchmark Note: Benchmark data is currently in the building phase; comparative norms will be reported beginning in Year 2 of the program.

MetroList® ServicesConfidential for Internal Use OnlyPage 15
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
CohortSegmentT3 ScoreT3 RatingComp
Brokerage TypeIndependent Brokerage3.47SuperiorCOM
Franchisee Office3.38SuperiorIO
Regional Brokerage Group3.00GoodIO
National Brokerage Brand/Franchisor3.43SuperiorCOM
Broker RoleBroker-Owner3.48SuperiorCOM
Broker-Manager3.14GoodIO
Broker-Sales Person3.50ExceptionalCOM
No. of MLSsOne3.52ExceptionalEX
Two3.47SuperiorCOM
Three or more3.32SuperiorIO
Brokerage SizeNone-Just Myself3.61ExceptionalEX
1–243.42SuperiorCOM
25–993.50ExceptionalCOM
100–1993.25SuperiorIO
200-4992.50AverageIO
500–9994.00ExceptionalEX
1,000 or more3.67ExceptionalEX

Cohort: EX = Excelling (0.05+ above overall 3.45)  ·  COM = Competitive (within 0.04)  ·  IO = Improvement Opportunity (0.05+ below)

MetroList® ServicesConfidential for Internal Use OnlyPage 16
Broker–MLS Market Intelligence Survey
Premium Report | March 2026
2
Support and Services
Q5 — Support and Services Matrix

Sentiment Summary

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 Differentiator
    • Multiple respondents specifically praised the ability to speak to a live person at MetroList — describing it as increasingly rare in the industry.
    • Staff was described as cordial, knowledgeable, and genuinely willing to help, particularly with technology questions.
    • Training opportunities were generally appreciated, though availability outside of business hours and outside of the main service center was raised as a limitation by members in outlying areas.
  • Compliance Experience Needs Attention
    • Compliance and rules enforcement received the lowest satisfaction score in this category (3.18) and generated the most pointed qualitative feedback.
    • Brokers expressed concern that enforcement feels reactive, inconsistent, and driven by member complaints rather than objective standards.
    • Several respondents requested more clarity on rules and more proactive outreach about changes, rather than retroactive violations.

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."
MetroList® ServicesConfidential for Internal Use OnlyPage 17
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."
MetroList® ServicesConfidential for Internal Use OnlyPage 18
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
ComponentScoreRatingScoreRating
T3 Benchmark
Category Score (Satisfaction + Components)3.42SuperiorBuilding—
Overall Satisfaction3.43SuperiorBuilding—
Accuracy & Reliability3.47SuperiorBuilding—
Enables Agents with Data3.42SuperiorBuilding—
Accessible & Usable3.37SuperiorBuilding—
Component Average3.42SuperiorBuilding—

Benchmark Note: Benchmark data is currently in the building phase; comparative norms will be reported beginning in Year 2 of the program.

MetroList® ServicesConfidential for Internal Use OnlyPage 19
Broker–MLS Market Intelligence Survey
Premium Report | March 2026
3
Data
Q6 — Data Quality Matrix
Score Breakdown by Respondent Demographics: Data Satisfaction
CohortSegmentT3 ScoreT3 RatingComp
Brokerage TypeIndependent Brokerage3.43SuperiorCOM
Franchisee Office3.38SuperiorCOM
Regional Brokerage Group3.50ExceptionalEX
National Brokerage Brand/Franchisor3.14GoodIO
Broker RoleBroker-Owner3.45SuperiorCOM
Broker-Manager3.43SuperiorCOM
Broker-Sales Person3.33SuperiorIO
No. of MLSsOne3.55ExceptionalEX
Two3.39SuperiorCOM
Three or more3.14GoodIO
Brokerage SizeNone-Just Myself3.57ExceptionalEX
1–243.42SuperiorCOM
25–993.11GoodIO
100–1993.00GoodIO
200-4993.25SuperiorIO
500–9994.00ExceptionalEX
1,000 or more3.00GoodIO

Cohort: EX = Excelling (0.05+ above overall 3.43)  ·  COM = Competitive (within 0.04)  ·  IO = Improvement Opportunity (0.05+ below)

MetroList® ServicesConfidential for Internal Use OnlyPage 20
Broker–MLS Market Intelligence Survey
Premium Report | March 2026
3
Data
Q6 — Data Quality Matrix

Sentiment Summary

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 Is Well-Established and Trusted
    • Brokers consistently described MetroList data as accurate, reliable, and more trustworthy than consumer-facing aggregators.
    • Tax record access across all 58 California counties was cited as a particularly high-value feature that supports pricing conversations.
    • Tools built on top of the data — particularly TrendVision for CMAs — received specific, enthusiastic praise.
  • Accessibility and Usability Have Room to Grow
    • While data quality scores were the highest in the report, accessibility scored slightly lower (3.37), suggesting that getting to the data can still be harder than it should be.
    • Mobile access to data was a common pain point, with agents reporting that fielding client questions in the field requires unnecessary extra steps.
    • Requests for expanded data coverage — ADU comps, commercial listings, and broader geographic coverage — appeared frequently across open-ended responses.

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"
MetroList® ServicesConfidential for Internal Use OnlyPage 21
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"
MetroList® ServicesConfidential for Internal Use OnlyPage 22
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
ComponentScoreRatingScoreRating
T3 Benchmark
Category Score (Satisfaction + Components)3.17GoodBuilding—
Overall Satisfaction3.14GoodBuilding—
Reliable Platform3.16GoodBuilding—
Enables Agents3.19GoodBuilding—
Accessible & Usable3.22GoodBuilding—
Component Average3.19GoodBuilding—

Benchmark Note: Benchmark data is currently in the building phase; comparative norms will be reported beginning in Year 2 of the program.

MetroList® ServicesConfidential for Internal Use OnlyPage 23
Broker–MLS Market Intelligence Survey
Premium Report | March 2026
4
Technology
Q7 — Technology & Tools Matrix
Score Breakdown by Respondent Demographics: Technology Satisfaction
CohortSegmentT3 ScoreT3 RatingComp
Brokerage TypeIndependent Brokerage3.18GoodCOM
Franchisee Office2.88AverageIO
Regional Brokerage Group3.00GoodIO
National Brokerage Brand/Franchisor2.83AverageIO
Broker RoleBroker-Owner3.18GoodCOM
Broker-Manager2.86AverageIO
Broker-Sales Person3.36SuperiorEX
No. of MLSsOne3.39SuperiorEX
Two2.91AverageIO
Three or more2.75AverageIO
Brokerage SizeNone-Just Myself3.43SuperiorEX
1–243.12GoodCOM
25–992.88AverageIO
100–1993.00GoodIO
200-4992.25DeficientIO
500–9993.00GoodIO
1,000 or more2.00DeficientIO

Cohort: EX = Excelling (0.05+ above overall 3.14)  ·  COM = Competitive (within 0.04)  ·  IO = Improvement Opportunity (0.05+ below)

MetroList® ServicesConfidential for Internal Use OnlyPage 24
Broker–MLS Market Intelligence Survey
Premium Report | March 2026
4
Technology
Q7 — Technology & Tools Matrix

Sentiment Summary

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 Central Technology Challenge
    • Platform usability ranked as the single most-cited pain point in Q17 (27 percent of respondents), directly supporting the technology scores observed here.
    • Brokers described the search experience as cumbersome, the map functionality as unreliable, and the mobile app as insufficient for field use.
    • The dual login system and repetitive AI photo review prompts were called out as specific examples of friction that should be eliminated.
  • Reliability Is Adequate but Expectations Are Rising
    • While reliability scored lowest in this category (3.16), broker feedback suggests the platform is 'good enough' rather than truly frustrating — a nuanced but important distinction.
    • Several respondents noted that core functions work reasonably well but that occasional outages and update cycles disrupt workflows.
    • The competitive benchmark for reliability has shifted: brokers now expect the same uptime and responsiveness they experience from consumer apps.

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."
MetroList® ServicesConfidential for Internal Use OnlyPage 25
Broker–MLS Market Intelligence Survey
Premium Report | March 2026
4
Technology
Q7 — Technology & Tools Matrix (Additional Comments)

Sample Comments

  • "See message above"
  • "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."
MetroList® ServicesConfidential for Internal Use OnlyPage 26
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
StatementScoreRating
MLS is a Partner in My Brokerage Success3.38Superior
I Trust the MLS to Make Decisions in Broker Interests3.03Good
My Brokerage Has Opportunities to Provide Input2.93Average

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
CohortSegmentT3 ScoreT3 RatingComp
Brokerage TypeIndependent Brokerage3.43SuperiorCOM
Franchisee Office3.00GoodIO
Regional Brokerage Group3.00GoodIO
National Brokerage Brand/Franchisor3.00GoodIO
Broker RoleBroker-Owner3.40SuperiorCOM
Broker-Manager3.50ExceptionalEX
Broker-Sales Person3.29SuperiorIO
No. of MLSsOne3.55ExceptionalEX
Two3.26SuperiorIO
Three or more3.03GoodIO
Brokerage SizeNone-Just Myself3.62ExceptionalEX
1–243.33SuperiorIO
25–993.22GoodIO
100–1993.00GoodIO
200-4993.00GoodIO
500–9993.50ExceptionalEX
1,000 or more2.33DeficientIO

Cohort: EX = Excelling (0.05+ above overall 3.38)  ·  COM = Competitive (within 0.04)  ·  IO = Improvement Opportunity (0.05+ below)

MetroList® ServicesConfidential for Internal Use OnlyPage 27
Broker–MLS Market Intelligence Survey
Premium Report | March 2026
5
Partnership and Trust
Q8 — Partnership and Relationship Statements

Sentiment Summary

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

  • Broker Partnership Perception Is Strong — but Trust Is Qualified
    • The majority of brokers express genuine appreciation for MetroList's role in their business, and many have long-standing positive relationships with staff.
    • Trust in decision-making, while in the Good range, is moderated by concerns about whether smaller and mid-sized brokerages have equal influence in how the MLS operates.
    • Several respondents raised specific examples — off-market listing rules, data-sharing decisions — as instances where they felt decisions had been made without adequate broker input.
  • Broker Input Mechanisms Are the Critical Gap
    • The Q8 input score (2.93) is the single most actionable finding in this report — it falls below the Good threshold and directly measures broker satisfaction with their voice in MLS governance.
    • Qualitative responses suggest brokers do not feel there is a clear, accessible channel for providing ongoing input beyond annual surveys.
    • Several respondents specifically requested more inclusive committee structures and more outreach to brokerages of all sizes — not just large or vocal ones.

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"
MetroList® ServicesConfidential for Internal Use OnlyPage 28
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"
MetroList® ServicesConfidential for Internal Use OnlyPage 29
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 Score2026 RatingT3 Broker BenchmarkT3 RatingRegional BenchmarkLocal Benchmark
3.13GoodBuilding—BuildingBuilding

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
CohortSegmentT3 ScoreT3 RatingComp
Brokerage TypeIndependent Brokerage3.14GoodCOM
Franchisee Office3.17GoodCOM
Regional Brokerage Group3.00GoodIO
National Brokerage Brand/Franchisor2.86AverageIO
Broker RoleBroker-Owner3.17GoodCOM
Broker-Manager2.86AverageIO
Broker-Sales Person3.33SuperiorEX
No. of MLSsOne3.36SuperiorEX
Two2.94AverageIO
Three or more2.86AverageIO
Brokerage SizeNone-Just Myself3.39SuperiorEX
1–243.10GoodCOM
25–992.88AverageIO
100–1993.00GoodIO
200-4992.67AverageIO
500–9993.50ExceptionalEX
1,000 or more2.67AverageIO

Cohort: EX = Excelling (0.05+ above overall 3.13)  ·  COM = Competitive (within 0.04)  ·  IO = Improvement Opportunity (0.05+ below)

MetroList® ServicesConfidential for Internal Use OnlyPage 30
Broker–MLS Market Intelligence Survey
Premium Report | March 2026
5
Partnership and Trust
Q9 — Data Governance Confidence

Sentiment Summary

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

  • Core Data Protection Is Generally Trusted
    • The majority of brokers are confident in MetroList's technical ability to protect listing data from unauthorized access.
    • Respondents with longer tenure in the market expressed more comfort with MetroList's data governance practices overall.
    • Several respondents indicated that their confidence is strong for technical protection but weaker for strategic data decisions.
  • Third-Party Data Sharing Is a Trust Flashpoint
    • The flow of listing data to consumer portals — Zillow being cited most frequently — was the primary source of concern among respondents who expressed lower confidence.
    • Brokers indicated that data-sharing decisions have significant business implications that warrant more broker consultation and transparency.
    • A clear public statement of MetroList's data governance philosophy and the rationale behind key sharing decisions would likely improve confidence among the skeptical segment.

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"
MetroList® ServicesConfidential for Internal Use OnlyPage 31
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"
MetroList® ServicesConfidential for Internal Use OnlyPage 32
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 Score2026 RatingT3 Broker BenchmarkT3 RatingRegional BenchmarkLocal Benchmark
3.13GoodBuilding—BuildingBuilding

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
CohortSegmentT3 ScoreT3 RatingComp
Brokerage TypeIndependent Brokerage3.17GoodCOM
Franchisee Office3.00GoodIO
Regional Brokerage Group2.67AverageIO
National Brokerage Brand/Franchisor2.57AverageIO
Broker RoleBroker-Owner3.17GoodCOM
Broker-Manager2.86AverageIO
Broker-Sales Person3.31SuperiorEX
No. of MLSsOne3.41SuperiorEX
Two2.82AverageIO
Three or more2.71AverageIO
Brokerage SizeNone-Just Myself3.48SuperiorEX
1–243.11GoodCOM
25–992.56AverageIO
100–1993.33SuperiorEX
200-4992.00DeficientIO
500–9993.00GoodIO
1,000 or more2.00DeficientIO

Cohort: EX = Excelling (0.05+ above overall 3.13)  ·  COM = Competitive (within 0.04)  ·  IO = Improvement Opportunity (0.05+ below)

MetroList® ServicesConfidential for Internal Use OnlyPage 33
Broker–MLS Market Intelligence Survey
Premium Report | March 2026
5
Partnership and Trust
Q10 — Technology Confidence

Sentiment Summary

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 Intentionality Is Moderate
    • Most brokers believe MetroList's technology decisions are made in good faith, but a significant minority questioned whether those decisions reflect true understanding of day-to-day broker workflows.
    • Several respondents noted a disconnect between features MetroList invests in and the practical needs of brokers operating in the field.
    • The technology investment narrative — what is being built, why, and how it benefits brokers — was cited as something MetroList could communicate more effectively.
  • AI Features Are a Double-Edged Sword
    • Recent AI implementations — particularly AI-driven photo analysis — were called out repeatedly as examples of features that feel forced and add workflow friction.
    • Brokers expressed openness to AI in principle but indicated that current implementations do not save time or reduce complexity in meaningful ways.
    • There is an opportunity for MetroList to re-engage brokers on AI feature design with direct input from active users before rolling out further enhancements.

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."
MetroList® ServicesConfidential for Internal Use OnlyPage 34
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
StatementScoreRating
Data used primarily to benefit brokers and clients3.23Good
Transparent about data sharing and licensing3.13Good
Long-term decisions align with broker interests3.11Good
Exercises appropriate restraint on new technologies3.04Good
Should focus on core MLS functions3.15Good
Should leverage economies of scale for broker benefit3.14Good

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
CohortSegmentT3 ScoreT3 RatingComp
Brokerage TypeIndependent Brokerage3.27SuperiorEX
Franchisee Office3.00GoodIO
Regional Brokerage Group2.67AverageIO
National Brokerage Brand/Franchisor2.86AverageIO
Broker RoleBroker-Owner3.26SuperiorEX
Broker-Manager2.71AverageIO
Broker-Sales Person3.38SuperiorEX
No. of MLSsOne3.45SuperiorEX
Two3.06GoodIO
Three or more2.81AverageIO
Brokerage SizeNone-Just Myself3.57ExceptionalEX
1–243.20GoodEX
25–992.89AverageIO
100–1992.50AverageIO
200-4992.75AverageIO
500–9993.00GoodIO
1,000 or more2.33DeficientIO

Cohort: EX = Excelling (0.05+ above overall 3.13)  ·  COM = Competitive (within 0.04)  ·  IO = Improvement Opportunity (0.05+ below)

MetroList® ServicesConfidential for Internal Use OnlyPage 35
Broker–MLS Market Intelligence Survey
Premium Report | March 2026
5
Partnership and Trust
Q11 — Governance and Decision-Making Statements

Sentiment Summary

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 Support a Core-First Strategy
    • The statement 'the MLS should focus on core MLS functions' scored well, reflecting a consistent theme across open-ended responses that MetroList should excel at its primary mission before expanding.
    • Respondents who expressed the most satisfaction consistently praised MetroList for doing the fundamentals well — data, search, compliance — rather than for innovation.
    • This sentiment creates a clear strategic signal: broker goodwill is most durable when core services are demonstrably excellent.
  • Transparency and Long-Term Alignment Need Reinforcement
    • The transparency (3.13) and long-term alignment (3.11) statements represent the softest scores in Q11, directly reflecting the trust concerns surfaced in Q8 and Q9.
    • Brokers want to understand how data-sharing decisions are made, who participates in technology selection, and how long-term strategy is developed.
    • A structured annual broker transparency report covering data governance decisions, technology investments, and strategic direction would directly address these concerns.

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"
MetroList® ServicesConfidential for Internal Use OnlyPage 36
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

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.

MetroList® ServicesConfidential for Internal Use OnlyPage 37
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)

Sentiment Summary

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.

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."
MetroList® ServicesConfidential for Internal Use OnlyPage 38
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)

Sentiment Summary

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.

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"
MetroList® ServicesConfidential for Internal Use OnlyPage 39
Broker–MLS Market Intelligence Survey
Premium Report | March 2026
Q14 — Marketplace Model (Additional Comments)

Sample Comments

  • "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."
MetroList® ServicesConfidential for Internal Use OnlyPage 40
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)

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.

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."
MetroList® ServicesConfidential for Internal Use OnlyPage 41
Broker–MLS Market Intelligence Survey
Premium Report | March 2026
Q15 — Subscription Data Access (Additional Comments)

Sample Comments

  • "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."
MetroList® ServicesConfidential for Internal Use OnlyPage 42
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)

Sentiment Summary

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.

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"
MetroList® ServicesConfidential for Internal Use OnlyPage 43
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)

Sentiment Summary

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.

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?"
MetroList® ServicesConfidential for Internal Use OnlyPage 44
Broker–MLS Market Intelligence Survey
Premium Report | March 2026
Q17 — Investment Priorities (Additional Comments)

Sample Comments

  • "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"
MetroList® ServicesConfidential for Internal Use OnlyPage 45
Broker–MLS Market Intelligence Survey
Premium Report | March 2026
Additional Comments and Open-Ended Responses

Key Themes from Additional 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."

General Comments

  • "Stay focused on core value to members in this current market . Costs are getting out of reach for entry level agents and brokerages??"
  • "More areas included would be great."
  • "Pleased with performance & communication"
  • "Stick to basics and do it well. I feel Metrolist is trying to expand into other branches yet the basics are not laser sharp."
  • "Not happy with the data sources."
MetroList® ServicesConfidential for Internal Use OnlyPage 46
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
CategoryCount%
Independent Brokerage17485.3%
Franchisee Office125.9%
National Brokerage Brand/Franchisor73.4%
Regional Brokerage Group62.9%
Metrolist Committee Member10.5%
Agent10.5%
Broker Associate10.5%
REMAX Gold 10.5%
Number of Licensed Agents
CategoryCount%
None-Just Myself5233.5%
1–248152.3%
25–9995.8%
100–19942.6%
200-49942.6%
500–99921.3%
1,000 or more31.9%
Respondent Role
CategoryCount%
Broker-Owner12882.6%
Broker-Sales Person159.7%
Broker-Manager74.5%
Brokekr-Realtor10.6%
Team leader 10.6%
agent10.6%
Number of MLSs Subscribed
CategoryCount%
One9158.7%
Two3421.9%
Three or more3019.4%

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.

MetroList® ServicesConfidential for Internal Use OnlyPage 47
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 / CategoryOveralln=204Independent BrokerageFranchisee OfficeRegional Brokerage GroupNational Brokerage Brand/Franchisor
1. Satisfaction and Value
Q2 — Overall Satisfaction3.273.313.123.002.71
Q3 — Business Importance3.643.643.503.753.57
2. Support and Services
Q5 — Support & Services3.453.473.383.003.43
3. Data
Q6 — Data Quality3.433.433.383.503.14
4. Technology
Q7 — Technology & Tools3.143.182.883.002.83
5. Partnership and Trust
Q8 — Partnership Statements3.383.433.003.003.00
Q9 — Data Governance3.133.143.173.002.86
Q10 — Technology Confidence3.133.173.002.672.57
T3 Rating Scale:
Exceptional
Superior
Good
Average
Deficient
MetroList® ServicesConfidential for Internal Use OnlyPage 48
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 / CategoryOveralln=204Broker-OwnerBroker-ManagerBroker-Sales Person
1. Satisfaction and Value
Q2 — Overall Satisfaction3.273.363.003.07
Q3 — Business Importance3.643.643.293.73
2. Support and Services
Q5 — Support & Services3.453.483.143.50
3. Data
Q6 — Data Quality3.433.453.433.33
4. Technology
Q7 — Technology & Tools3.143.182.863.36
5. Partnership and Trust
Q8 — Partnership Statements3.383.403.503.29
Q9 — Data Governance3.133.172.863.33
Q10 — Technology Confidence3.133.172.863.31
T3 Rating Scale:
Exceptional
Superior
Good
Average
Deficient
MetroList® ServicesConfidential for Internal Use OnlyPage 49
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 / CategoryOveralln=204OneTwoThree or more
1. Satisfaction and Value
Q2 — Overall Satisfaction3.273.493.062.97
Q3 — Business Importance3.643.803.383.47
2. Support and Services
Q5 — Support & Services3.453.523.473.32
3. Data
Q6 — Data Quality3.433.553.393.14
4. Technology
Q7 — Technology & Tools3.143.392.912.75
5. Partnership and Trust
Q8 — Partnership Statements3.383.553.263.03
Q9 — Data Governance3.133.362.942.86
Q10 — Technology Confidence3.133.412.822.71
T3 Rating Scale:
Exceptional
Superior
Good
Average
Deficient
MetroList® ServicesConfidential for Internal Use OnlyPage 50
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 / CategoryOveralln=204None-Just Myself1–2425–99100–199200-499500–9991,000 or more
1. Satisfaction and Value
Q2 — Overall Satisfaction3.273.603.243.113.002.254.002.00
Q3 — Business Importance3.643.703.683.443.253.003.503.67
2. Support and Services
Q5 — Support & Services3.453.613.423.503.252.504.003.67
3. Data
Q6 — Data Quality3.433.573.423.113.003.254.003.00
4. Technology
Q7 — Technology & Tools3.143.433.122.883.002.253.002.00
5. Partnership and Trust
Q8 — Partnership Statements3.383.623.333.223.003.003.502.33
Q9 — Data Governance3.133.393.102.883.002.673.502.67
Q10 — Technology Confidence3.133.483.112.563.332.003.002.00
T3 Rating Scale:
Exceptional
Superior
Good
Average
Deficient
MetroList® ServicesConfidential for Internal Use OnlyPage 51
Appendix A — T3 Scoring Methodology · Page 1 of 2
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 OptionNumeric ValueNotes
Very Satisfied / Strongly Agree4
Satisfied / Agree3
Dissatisfied / Disagree2
Very Dissatisfied / Strongly Disagree1
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.

Exceptional
3.50 – 4.00
Top-tier performance; strong across all areas
Superior
3.25 – 3.49
Above-average; recognized leader
Good
3.00 – 3.24
Solid performance; improvement opportunities exist
Average
2.50 – 2.99
Below national norms; action recommended
Deficient
1.00 – 2.49
Significant gaps; urgent attention needed
Category Score Formulas

Five categories contribute equally to the Overall Composite T3 Score. Each category score is the mean of its constituent question scores, as defined below.

CategoryQuestionsScore Formula
1 · Overall SatisfactionQ2, Q3Mean of Q2 (Overall Satisfaction) + Q3 (Net Promoter proxy — recommend to colleague)
2 · Core MLS ServicesQ5Mean of all Q5 component items (MLS data quality, listing tools, search functionality, etc.)
3 · Member Support & CommunicationQ6Mean of all Q6 component items (responsiveness, staff helpfulness, communication clarity, etc.)
4 · Education & ResourcesQ7Mean of all Q7 component items (training quality, resource availability, onboarding support, etc.)
5 · Governance & Industry LeadershipQ8, 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 ScoreSimple 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.
MetroList® ServicesConfidential for Internal Use OnlyAppendix A — Page 1 of 2
Appendix A — T3 Scoring Methodology · Page 2 of 2
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.

StepCalculationResult
Q2
Overall Satisfaction		8 valid responses: 4, 4, 3, 4, 3, 3, 3, 4
Sum = 28 ÷ 8 respondents		3.50
Q3
Recommend to Colleague		9 responses; 1 “No Opinion” excluded → 8 valid: 4, 3, 3, 4, 4, 3, 4, 3
Sum = 28 ÷ 8		3.50
Category 1
Overall Satisfaction		Mean of Q2 (3.50) + Q3 (3.50)
6.00 ÷ 2		3.50 Superior
Category 2
Core MLS Services		Q5 component mean (hypothetical)3.15 Good
Category 3
Support & Comm.		Q6 component mean (hypothetical)3.40 Superior
Category 4
Education & Resources		Q7 component mean (hypothetical)2.90 Good
Category 5
Governance & Leadership		Mean of Q8 + Q9 + Q10 + Q11 (hypothetical)3.28 Superior
3.25
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.
MetroList® ServicesConfidential for Internal Use OnlyAppendix A — Page 2 of 2
Appendix B — Survey Question Reference
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.

  • Q1 — Select your organization type. (Screener)
  • 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.
  • Q15 — With appropriate safeguards for brokers, the MLS should consider offering subscription-based data access to complementary industries such as mortgage, insurance, and title.
  • 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.
  • Q17 — What are the top three pain points your brokerage experiences with the MLS or MLS-provided technologies?
Demographic & Administrative Questions
  • 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)
MetroList® ServicesConfidential for Internal Use OnlyAppendix B