In the world of estate agency, bigger often means better… or does it?
A fascinating trend in sales data raises an eyebrow – if not a full-blown existential crisis—for those looking to scale their business.
The raw data of the sales agreed numbers come from the Kings and Queens of raw property data, TwentyEA, and then myself and my team found the number of branches from the agents websites.
Agencies with 3-4 branches sell an average of 286 properties per year per branch
Agencies with 5-6 branches sell an average of 203 properties per year per branch
Agencies with 7-9 branches sell an average of 143 properties per year per branch
Agencies with 10-14 branches sell an average of 106 properties per year per branch
Agencies with 15-19 branches sell an average of 91 properties per year per branch
Agencies with 20 to 29 branches sell an average of 77 properties per year per branch
Agencies with 30 to 49 branches sell an average of 59 properties per year per branch
Agencies with 49 to 99 branches sell an average of 56 properties per year per branch
Agencies with 100 to 149 branches sell an average of 77 properties per year per branch
Agencies with 150+ branches sell an average of 57 properties per year per branch
This data only relates to the Top 200 UK Estate Agents in 2024 by volume of sales agreed in 2024.
So, what’s happening here? The instinctive logic says that the number branches should mean more sales per branch (because of economies of scale & other things), but this data suggests the opposite.
Is it a case of:
A loss of local expertise and brand trust as agencies expand?
Is the corporate ‘machine’ slowing down decision making?
Could it be homogenised central based marketing that means they arent selling so many homes?
Are larger networks standardising their offering, so each branch’s uniqueness isn’t allowed to shine through
Or is it something else?
Of course, there are exceptions and these are averages, but this data poses a serious question: At what point does the growth of branches start to hinder, rather than help, an estate agency’s success?
We’d love to hear your thoughts – why do you think this happens?
This doesnt include the Estate Agents that dont have a High Street operation (eg PB or Yopa), nor the Self employed models (eg exp etc).
It is only looking at the agents that made the top 200 by volume of sales, so by definition, to make that cut and have small number of branches, means it skew the figures slightly.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Also to consider, large businesses have multiple departments, lettings, surveying and especially financial services. So selling more services on a single transaction can increase branch profit
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
very valid point Southie
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Large/corporate agencies focus more on volume than results, prioritising listings over actual sales. Their valuers and salespeople are incentivised through commissions to secure listings, often leading to overvalued properties. The responsibility of selling then falls on negotiators, who are often underpaid and inexperienced. It’s no surprise that many new listings appear overpriced on property portals, only to be reduced shortly after. This cycle erodes trust in agents, reinforcing their reputation as one of the least trusted professionals.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
a great reason to choose us Mr & Mrs Vendor is that we have five million computer linked offices spread all over the UK which guarantees that we will find a buyer for your lovely home…. ummm
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
So salty. Stuck in your lane rather than slate other models. Boring!
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
A line we have both used in times gone by, one that sounds good, but really doesn’t really mean that much in terms of actually helping to find a buyer for a property.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Do these numbers really stack up?
Looking at the data, a 3-4 branch agency “averaging” 286 sales per branch per year raises more questions than it answers. Based on widely accepted industry norms—1.5 to 2 sales per branch per week—the expected range would be 78-104 sales per year per branch.
That’s a huge gap. So, what’s going on?
The first issue is how these numbers were calculated—and that’s not really explained. The sales agreed data comes from TwentyEA, while the branch numbers were gathered separately from agency websites. That’s already a mix-and-match approach, which introduces a risk of inconsistency.
Then there’s the issue of averages. For an average to be meaningful, there needs to be a balanced number of agencies in each size category. But we don’t know how many agencies were counted in each bracket. If there’s just one or two high-performing 3-4 branch agencies, they could be dragging the average up, making it look as though smaller agencies outperform larger ones when, in reality, they’re just statistical outliers.
And what about how branches are defined? Not every firm counts branches the same way. Some count every office, while others operate from central hubs covering multiple locations but still classify themselves as ‘multi-branch’. If different definitions are being mixed together, comparing per-branch sales becomes unreliable.
So before drawing conclusions, we’d need to know:
How many agencies were included in each category?
Was any effort made to standardise what counts as a branch?
Are we looking at sales agreed or completions? If fall-throughs are included, the numbers could be artificially high.
Are a few high-performing agencies skewing the results?
Right now, the numbers raise more questions than they answer. Without a clear explanation of the methodology, it’s difficult to take this as a reliable reflection of market performance.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Robert….
Thanks for your reply—let me tackle some of your questions.
How were the numbers calculated?
The sales agreed figures come from TwentyEA, while the branch numbers were gathered manually from agent websites. TwentyEA doesn’t publish branch counts, so it took some good old-fashioned plod work to count them up.
I’m aware that some agencies list ‘phantom branches’—especially at the top end and among certain mini-corporates that have closed locations but kept the phone number live. To account for that, we cross-referenced against Google and other sources. Is it perfect? No. Is it pretty darn close? Yes.
On averages and potential skewing:
You’re absolutely right—if only the highest-performing smaller agencies make it into the Top 200, that could skew the numbers and give the impression that smaller firms generally outperform larger ones. A broader dataset would provide an even clearer picture of how agency size correlates with performance. That said, this isn’t unique to smaller agencies—every bracket contains firms that outperform and underperform, but the overall pattern remains.
Why the Top 200?
There are over 14,500 estate agency brands in the UK, and manually checking every single one wasn’t feasible. So, I focused on the Top 200 agents by sales agreed—a group that represents the highest-volume agencies in the market.
Breakdown of agencies per category:
3-4 branches: 17 brands
5-6 branches: 18 brands
7-9 branches: 28 brands
10-14 branches: 46 brands
15-19 branches: 20 brands
20-29 branches: 20 brands
30-49 branches: 15 brands
49-99 branches: 12 brands
100-149 branches: 4 brands
150+ branches: 7 brands
And finally, yes, this is based on sales agreed, not completions.
But here’s the real point……
I completely agree with you—this data raises more questions than it answers. It’s not definitive, far from it—it was done for fun and left open to spark discussion. I’m not saying this is the absolute truth of estate agency scaling; rather, I wanted to put something out there that gets people thinking and talking.
Really appreciate your thoughts on this, Robert—exactly the kind of debate I was hoping for!
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Chris, I appreciate the effort that went into compiling this, but the way it was presented is unfair on many levels.
Right now, agents are operating in a difficult market, with both pricing and transaction volumes under pressure. Many are already questioning what more they can do. This article, initially positioned as fact, risks making them think their staff are underperforming—when in reality, achieving consistent sales in this climate is a strong result.
When data like this doesn’t hold up to scrutiny, it creates:
Unnecessary self-doubt among agents – Many will assume their teams are underachieving when, in reality, they are navigating tough conditions.
Unfair comparisons – If the dataset primarily includes top-performing agencies, it creates unrealistic benchmarks for the wider industry.
A misleading narrative – Using sales agreed as a measure of branch productivity ignores fall-through rates and the challenges agents face to get deals over the line.
Now that it has been reframed as “just for fun”, the climbdown raises another issue—why wasn’t that made clear from the start? Property Industry Eye has an informed readership; it was inevitable that these numbers would be challenged. If the data was always meant to spark discussion rather than serve as a definitive insight, positioning it that way upfront would have avoided confusion.
Good market analysis should inform, not mislead—especially in a sector where accuracy and trust matter.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Robert,
I really appreciate the time you have taken to challenge this—good debate is what keeps our EA industry sharp.
Let me address your key points:
1. Was this unfair to agents in a tough market?
I completely understand that many agents are already feeling the pressure in the current climate, and the last thing I want is to create unnecessary self doubt. That said, I don’t believe this data implies that agents are underperforming—rather, it raises questions about the structural challenges of scaling in estate agency.
Nowhere did I say, “If you’re in a larger firm, you’re doing something wrong or vice versa” The numbers simply show a pattern. The conversation was always meant to be about why that pattern exists, not about blaming individuals or teams.
2. Does this create unfair comparisons?
You’re absolutely right—the dataset consists of the Top 200 agencies by volume, so it’s naturally tilted towards highperforming firms. That means smaller estate agencies making the cut are likely outliers, and that will skew averages.
Would a broader dataset give a more balanced view? Hell Yes! But the pattern still exists across every size bracket within this Top 200—per-branch sales decline as firm size increases. The question isn’t whether the number itself is ‘right’ for every agency in the country; it’s whether there’s a structural reason behind that trend.
3. Is using ‘sales agreed’ misleading?
Sales agreed isn’t a perfect measure of branch productivity…… fall-thru rates vary, and completions are the final proof of success. That said, sales agreed is a widely used metric for measuring agency output in real time, whereas completions introduce a lagging effect due to awful 19 week conveyancing timescales.
I take your point, though—completions or exchange % of listings would tell a fuller richer story, and if I were running this again, I’d be tempted to include both.
4. Why wasnt it framed as a debate from the start?
Fair challenge. In hindsight, I could have made it clearer upfront that this was never meant to be a definitvie performance ranking. The open ended conclusion was meant to encourage discussion, but I can see how some might have read the headlines as a hard fact rather than a conversation starter (again, I have to assume someone will read the whole article – not the headlines)
For the record, to call this a “climbdown” is not fair my friend—it was always intended to spark debate, and I stand by the fact that this trend is worth talking about. If that wasn’t clear enough at the outset, that’s on me. Lesson learned – yet it was in there at the end of the original article (I can’t help if someone is a headline reader and cant be bothered to read the whole article)
Final Thoughts ……….
You are spot on—good property market analysis should inform, not mislead, and accuracy matters in this industry. I hope this reply reassures you that the intent was never to undermine agents or paint an unfair picture. It was simply about opening up a conversation on an intriguing trend.
Appreciate the challenge, Robert—this kind of pushback is exactly why I love this industry.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
The concern isn’t just about debate—it’s about fairness and accuracy in how the data was positioned. The Top 200 dataset is itself inherently skewed, excluding dominant local agents who don’t meet the volume threshold but still control significant market share in their areas. For example, an agent in Dudley with a 46% market share isn’t on the list, yet they dictate the local market dynamics, meaning any per-branch comparison is already distorted.
On top of that, sales agreed isn’t a reliable measure of branch performance. Without factoring in fall-through rates, exchange timelines, and withdrawals, it’s an incomplete metric that doesn’t reflect what agents actually bank.
Then there’s branch classification—some agencies count hubs as branches, others count locations that no longer function as active offices. Without a standardised method for counting branches, per-branch sales figures lack consistency, making direct comparisons unreliable.
If the intention was to spark debate, then that’s exactly what’s happened. But when data is positioned as fact, it naturally invites scrutiny.
Chris, you and TwentyEA can’t expect to present conclusions based on this data without them being examined closely. If this had been clearly framed as a conversation starter with its limitations stated upfront, there wouldn’t be an issue. But when data is presented as statistical insight, it has to be robust enough to support the conclusions drawn from it.
At best, this was a flawed dataset leading to misleading comparisons. At worst, it was an unfair representation of branch performance that risks undermining agents who are actually doing a strong job in difficult conditions. Once data is published in the public domain, it will be scrutinised—that’s how credibility is maintained.
That said, I think this discussion has now run its course. The key points have been raised, and the limitations of the dataset are now clear. I’ll leave it there.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Thank you Robert
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
It should be noted that major firms often include many departments, such lettings, surveying, and financial services. As a result, the profit made by a branch can be increased by selling additional services on a single transaction. https://poor-bunny.io
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register