Open Real Estate says it isn’t trying to replace local MLS systems. Fair enough.
But if the country’s largest real estate portals eventually receive listing information through one national, brokerage-led network instead of hundreds of individual MLS feeds, doesn’t that fundamentally change the MLS’s role?
That’s the question I keep coming back to. And it’s a much bigger question than whether four major real estate companies can build another technology platform.
On Oct. 26, AGNT, HomeServices of America, Keller Williams and Real REMAX Group announced Open Real Estate, an initiative designed to create a shared national database for listing information. The idea is to let participating brokerages enter listings once, using standardized fields, and distribute that information across MLS systems, portals and other authorized platforms.
It’s an interesting concept. But I think the bigger story is what happens to the industry’s existing infrastructure if this becomes a major source of listing data.
It’s about where the data starts
Today, local MLS systems play an important role in collecting and distributing listing information. Open Real Estate is proposing a brokerage-led national database that could sit closer to where listings originate, with information flowing outward to local MLS systems, portals and other platforms.
That difference matters.
For a major real estate portal, the potential benefit is obvious: accessing listing information through one national feed instead of managing hundreds of individual MLS feeds.
Now, Open Real Estate has made it clear that it intends to work alongside existing MLS systems. But working alongside something doesn’t necessarily mean its role stays the same. If a national brokerage-led platform eventually becomes a major distribution point for listing information, local MLS systems could continue providing rules, tools and services while their role in distributing that information changes.
That’s not necessarily a bad thing. But it’s a meaningful shift, and one I think the industry should be discussing before the infrastructure and rules are finalized.
And then there’s the money
Here’s something worth thinking about: What if Zillow had to pay your brokerage for access to your listings?
Think about that for a second.
For years, agents have spent money advertising on platforms that attract consumers using listing information our industry provides.
What if some of that money started flowing the other way?
Now, I’m not suggesting Open Real Estate has announced that Zillow will be paying brokerages. It hasn’t. The financial arrangements haven’t been finalized, and we don’t know exactly who would pay for access to the data.
However, Open Real Estate has said that participating brokerages and agents will share in the value generated by their listing information. And according to Inman‘s reporting, the proposed model includes equal revenue-sharing among participating brokerages.
Think about what that could mean. A smaller brokerage contributing 100 listings could receive the same compensation per listing as a national company contributing 10,000. The financial details are still being worked out, but the principle is interesting.
That changes a big part of the conversation. This isn’t just about making listing distribution more efficient. It’s about recognizing the financial value of the information brokerages contribute to the marketplace.
And that brings us right back to control. Who decides what that data is worth? Who gets to buy it? Who gets paid? And do smaller independent brokerages have the same influence over those decisions as the companies that created the platform?
Equal compensation per listing is one thing. Equal influence over the rules is another.
Canada has already built much of the infrastructure
There’s already a real-world example of what national listing distribution can look like while local MLS systems remain in place. And it offers some lessons about what happens when the questions of access and control aren’t fully settled.
Canada doesn’t have one national MLS system. We have local and regional MLS systems operated through real estate boards and associations. Those systems feed listing information into Realtor.ca, our national consumer platform.
We also have CREA’s Data Distribution Facility, which allows participating brokerages to authorize their listings to appear on other websites and technology platforms. In other words, local MLS systems remain in place, but listing information can be distributed nationally through shared infrastructure.
And it works at scale. According to CREA, Realtor.ca recorded 633 million visits in 2025 and represented more than 60 percent of Canada’s online real estate market share. Realtor.ca is operated through a wholly owned subsidiary of CREA, our national Realtor association.
Think about what that represents. Competing brokerages, large and small, contribute to a national platform that gives consumers one place to search across the country. That level of cooperation isn’t hypothetical. It’s something Canadian real estate professionals rely on every day.
But there’s an important distinction. In Canada, listing information generally originates within local MLS systems before being distributed nationally. Open Real Estate is proposing a national, brokerage-led database closer to the beginning of that process. And while Canada’s system has demonstrated that national distribution can work, it certainly hasn’t solved every question about data access.
Just 11 days before the Open Real Estate announcement, Canada’s Competition Bureau reached an agreement concerning Centris real estate data in Quebec, requiring greater data-feed access for association members. The Bureau concluded that previous restrictions were likely limiting competition and innovation.
It’s a reminder that building a cooperative system doesn’t automatically settle who can use the information or what they can build with it.
How open is open?
There’s another detail I find interesting to watch. Under Open Real Estate’s proposed rules, listings could be made publicly available or placed in a participant-only category. That second option would make listings visible to agents at participating brokerages without allowing them to be publicly marketed.
It’s arguably more cooperative than keeping a listing inside one brokerage’s private network. But it’s still not the same as making that listing visible to every consumer.
So when we talk about creating a more open marketplace, we need to be clear about what that actually means.
Open to whom?
That’s not an argument against seller choice. It’s a question about how seller choice, buyer access and industry cooperation fit together. And it’s another example of why the rules governing a national platform matter just as much as the technology behind it.
The real test for Open Real Estate
I don’t think Open Real Estate signals the end of local MLS systems.
Canada has already demonstrated that local MLS systems and national listing distribution can work alongside each other. There’s value in both. But I also wouldn’t dismiss Open as simply another database.
If participating brokerages begin feeding their listings into a national system, and that system eventually becomes a primary source of information for portals and other technology companies, the role of the MLS changes. It might still exist. It might still provide local rules, tools, education and services. But it may no longer play the same role in how listing information reaches the broader marketplace.
Now add the proposed monetization model. The organization distributing that information could also have significant influence over how its commercial value is shared. That’s where the questions about governance, participation and competition become so important.
The four founding companies have made a significant commitment to cooperation. That’s worth recognizing. But the real test won’t simply be whether they can build the platform. It will be whether the smaller brokerages, independent agents, buyers and sellers who didn’t help create it benefit from the decisions being made.
Open Real Estate doesn’t need to replace the MLS to change who controls the feed … or who gets paid for it.
The views and opinions expressed here are those of the contributor and separate from the Inman newsroom.
Matt Richling is the founder of New Purveyors at REMAX Hallmark in Ottawa. Get connected on Instagram.
