A new report from the Consumer Policy Center finds that Compass has built commanding market share in several major U.S. housing markets — and is increasingly keeping transactions within its own network at rates that outpace many competitors.
The study, based on 5,000 recent home sales across Boston, Washington, D.C., Chicago, San Diego and Austin, offers new details on how that growth is playing out. It comes as Compass accelerates its expansion through its January 2026 acquisition of Anywhere Real Estate, a high-profile partnership with Rocket Companies and Redfin, and the recent withdrawal of its antitrust lawsuit against Zillow.
The newly formed Compass International Holdings — the combined entity following the Anywhere acquisition, which the CPC describes as the “New Compass” — now holds between 30 percent and 39.5 percent of unit sales across all five markets studied. In four of the five cities, Compass’s share is at least four times larger than the next biggest brokerage, underscoring the extent of its dominance.
“It’s not just that they have 30 or 40 percent; it’s that they’re several times larger than the next biggest firm in those markets,” Stephen Brobeck, a senior fellow at the Consumer Policy Center and the report’s author, told Inman.
The Chicago figure helps illustrate how quickly acquisitions can affect local markets. Compass’ purchase of @properties-Christie’s helped cement its position as the city’s dominant brokerage, a lead that was further expanded after the Anywhere deal.
Compass CEO Robert Reffkin has previously signaled that the company’s goal is to reach 30 percent market share in 30 markets by 2030, though Compass has not confirmed a full list of those markets. The CPC report suggests that these markets include many of the largest U.S. metros as well as high-income resort destinations such as Aspen, the Hamptons and Telluride.
Double-ending comes into focus
One of the report’s central findings is Compass’s high rate of double-ended transactions — deals in which both the buyer and seller are represented by agents from the same brokerage — a dynamic researchers link in part to the company’s three-phase marketing strategy, which begins with “Private Exclusives” available only to buyers working with a Compass agent.
The most striking data point comes from Washington, D.C., where Compass’s double-ending rate reached 41 percent. For context, Brobeck told Inman that when he studied double-ending rates across cities roughly a decade ago, the typical range was 3 to 12 percent.
But equally notable is what the D.C. data doesn’t show. Of 89 double-ended Compass sales, only one involved a single agent representing both buyer and seller. Brobeck said the data suggests Compass may be encouraging agents to keep deals within the company while discouraging dual agency.
“They’re not trying to have one agent handle both sides; they’re trying to keep the transaction within the company and spread the business internally,” he said. “They don’t want one person to hog everything.”
Internal Compass documents surfaced during its recent lawsuit against Zillow show the company tracked that off-market sales double-end at a rate 72 percent higher than on-market sales, according to prior Inman reporting. Compass has since withdrawn that lawsuit, which had sought to limit Zillow’s efforts to restrict private listings. Compass has previously said it does not track or encourage double-ending as a goal.
On the report’s findings around high rates of “double-ending” in markets like Chicago and Washington, D.C., a Compass spokesperson told Inman the analysis relies on a partial dataset and does not reflect the full scope of the company’s business, adding that agents are expected to act in their clients’ best interests regardless of who represents the buyer. The company also said its off-MLS listings are broadly accessible, noting that agents from any brokerage can view Compass Private Exclusives through its offices.
On the referral fee program, the spokesperson said buyer inquiries from Compass.com listings have long been directed to listing agents as the professionals who are most familiar with the property, and that the recently launched program gives those agents the option to pass leads to other Compass agents while earning a 10 percent fee if a deal closes.
Limited resistance — so far
Brobeck emphasized that Anywhere integration is still in its early stages, suggesting double-ending rates across the New Compass footprint could rise considerably over the next several years.
The report places Compass’s rise in the context of a weakened regulatory environment. The National Association of Realtors, which has been hobbled by leadership scandals and the fallout from commission-related class action litigation, has largely stepped aside. And the DOJ and FTC have shown no indication of pursuing antitrust action against Compass’s recent acquisitions or partnerships, while state attorneys general have historically deferred to industry-dominated real estate commissions, Brobeck said.
The only significant institutional pushback came from Zillow, which had been pushing back against private listings — a dispute that dissolved after Compass dropped its litigation against the portal and Zillow launched its own coming-soon program. The result, the report argues, is a fragmented response: competitors forming their own partnerships, portals adjusting policies and little in the way of coordinated resistance.
What it means for consumers
For consumers navigating markets where Compass dominance is most pronounced, Brobeck recommends interviewing multiple agents before committing to one, and suggested seeking out an experienced associate broker at a well-regarded local firm.
“I’d never tell anyone not to work with a Compass agent — there are a lot of very good Compass agents — but consumers should consider others. Interview at least a couple of other agents,” Brobeck said.
Brobeck said the current data may reflect an early stage of Compass’ expansion, particularly as it works to integrate recent acquisitions — a shift that could further increase in-house transactions over time.
“How the industry will evolve in the future is far from clear,” the report concludes. “It seems certain, though, that Compass’s own priorities and practices will exert a major influence.”
