As the war over private listings intensifies, Zillow and Compass (among others) are using dueling data reports and starkly different methodologies to make their respective cases in the courtroom—and in the court of public opinion.
On July 24, Compass reported that pre-marketed homes that started as Private Exclusives or Coming Soons sold for 4.6% more in the U.S. than comparable listings that go straight to the MLS. But earlier in July, Zillow filed its own expert analysis in court showing that Compass private listing sales resulted in 4.8% lower home prices nationally and 4% lower in Chicagoland, according to news reports.
Both reports use divergent explanations to arrive at opposite conclusions about whether private listings benefit sellers. Experts say such industry reports should withstand close scrutiny and be independently verified to be credible.
But with conflicting data that arguably serve each company’s interests and bottom lines, agents, brokers—and maybe most importantly, consumers—are left wondering what numbers they can actually believe.
Why report methodology matters
The Compass study is based on an analysis of more than 70,000 listings from April 2025 through March 2026. Notably, the study excluded expired or withdrawn listings, which experts say could skew the results.
Compass notes it controlled for more than 50 confounding variables, but it never gives specifics. Compass also points to independent research from Dr. Darren Hayunga at the University of Georgia that it says reinforces its conclusions. But that study found a premium of just 1.7% for private listings—less than half of Compass’s figure.
Hayunga’s analysis was also based on over 700,000 listings in the Dallas-Fort Worth area (not nationwide) over a 20-year period. He attributed the gap in pricing to a “negotiation discount” sellers take for listing on the MLS without realizing it. Hayunga’s paper, which Compass linked to in its study, is no longer available online. A statement from SSRN, the academic publishing site that hosted it, indicates the paper is under review or has been removed from the site.
Compass did not respond to interview requests or written questions about its methodology or latest findings.
Wayne Bell, a former California real estate commissioner and now general counsel of the Real Estate Advocacy Alliance, has a hard time digesting Compass’s findings and methodology because they can’t be independently verified and are based solely on internal data. Using Hayunga’s numbers doesn’t make the brokerage’s findings a slam dunk either, Bell added.
“If I’m reading that and I’m thinking of selling my home, that’s not very convincing,” Bell said. “It’s just common sense that the more people who are looking at something you’re selling, the more bids you’re going to get, the more competition you’re going to get, the better price you’re going to get—rather than a constricted group or a small group of particular buyers inside of a Compass network.”
Hayunga himself acknowledged this in his paper and in a previous conversation with RISMedia, while noting that his research pointed to several “rational” explanations for the price premium.
Additionally, Zillow released another study in May, finding that homesellers who listed off the MLS lost a combined $1.36 billion over three years, selling for 1.3% less than those who listed publicly. Zillow also reported that sellers who were involved in dual agency transactions lost $1.49 billion over the same period.
In its methodology, Zillow said it analyzed more than 15 million transactions nationwide from 2023 to 2025, adhering to “strict inclusion criteria for evaluating dual agency and private listing effects.”
Deconstructing the data
After Compass published its report in late July, Zillow’s chief economist Mischa Fischer wrote a sharp rebuke of the data just days later. He noted that “Compass’ analysis is largely made up of homes that went through all three phases and ultimately sold on the MLS, but those are precisely the homes that failed to sell privately during the first two phases of their marketing scheme, and not the most important segment of homes to analyze.”
The central flaw in Compass’s argument in favor of private listings putting more money in sellers’ pockets is that it fails to isolate the selection mechanism, Fischer told RISMedia in an interview.
“What 4.6% is showing is that you’re targeting housing that’s worth 4.6% more,” Fischer said. “The negotiation discount doesn’t make any sense as a statement of theory,” he added, explaining that houses typically get bid up (not down) from their starting prices all the time.
Fischer pointed to two outside studies from entities that don’t have a horse in the race: research from the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia and a peer-reviewed paper from the Journal of Real Estate Economics, both published in the past 12 months. Neither is directly focused on the private listing issue that Compass and Zillow are vying over, but the Federal Reserve study found that, at least for older sellers (ages 70 and older), private listings resulted in lower sales prices.
The important thing, Fisher noted, is that neither study is affiliated with a listing portal or real estate brokerage, and both reach similar conclusions. Broker incentives, not pre-marketing itself, appear to shape which homes get steered into private listing networks and dual-agency transactions.
Fischer said he’s confident that Zillow consistently and honestly characterizes its own findings and other researchers’ work. “I don’t think any of those things are true about Compass’s empirical claims,” he added.
For Bell, a key sticking point is the fiduciary duty factor. Real estate agents are legally bound to put their client’s interests ahead of their own, and that includes their commission, he said.
Most sellers, he explained, don’t have the expertise to evaluate a brokerage’s internal research on their own, and often trust the agent across the table. Bell said he doubts that private listings are being offered as a genuine choice.
“I believe their plan is to move every seller to their private exclusives,” Bell said. He added that when sellers aren’t given full, independently verified data before agreeing to go private, “the consent was not informed; it was manufactured.”
Industry scrutiny intensifies
The dispute isn’t confined to press releases and blog posts. Zillow has sued Compass and Midwest Real Estate Data, or MRED, the Chicago-area MLS, alleging the brokerage’s private listing push amounts to antitrust conduct. A federal judge already granted a temporary restraining order in the case, preventing MRED from cutting Zillow off from its listings and requiring the portal to re-add banned listings back onto its site.
In a recent blog post, MRED sought to frame the upcoming ruling as a referendum on a brokerage’s right to be “treated consistently regardless of business model,” comparing the current debate to the 2008 Department of Justice settlement with NAR over the treatment of VOW brokerages.
“If Zillow can receive an MLS feed and arbitrarily exclude certain listings, what prevents every brokerage from doing the same?” the MLS asked.
Bell said the ruling is worth watching closely, because a preliminary injunction often signals how a judge is leaning on the underlying merits of a lawsuit. The implications are substantial, he added.
“If the court says I am finding for Zillow and against Compass and MRED because I think Zillow’s claims on behalf of open marketing is valid and accurate…that’s going to be a big deal,” Bell said. “On the other side, if Compass and MRED win, that’s a big hit for open markets.”
For agents and consumers, the challenge is how to make sense of competing brokerage data when both sides have skin in the game.
Fischer’s advice is to start with independent, peer-reviewed research and established market theory, rather than corporate press releases.
“Can you look at the nature of the analysis and the claims and say…are they consistent and honest in their characterization?”
Bell’s advice to sellers is to ask any agent pushing a private listing program to explain why keeping a home off the open MLS benefits them rather than the brokerage. They should also ask to see underlying data and why a tested approach (using the open market) with decades of results behind it isn’t being suggested, he added.
Jesse Williams contributed to this report.
