Reonomy

Name: Reonomy
Brand: Reonomy
Rating: 3.9 (46 reviews)

Reonomy makes it easy to source new deals and find off-market opportunities with its leading CRE property and ownership.

Est 2013|Valuation $201.5M|Raised $137.5M|17 Ref Customers

LinkedIn 10K|Web traffic 93K|FTEs 20|HQ New York, New York, US

MarketsList Building & Enrichment CRE Investment & Underwriting Software

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative analysis

Areas of relative strength: - Ownership and portfolio intelligence orientation: Reonomy focuses on resolving ownership entities and mapping ownership networks, which aligns with user reports about effectiveness in finding owners and mailing addresses. - Programmatic access: Reonomy provides documented API endpoints and promotes enterprise API and bulk data feeds. Where competitors may outperform Reonomy: - CoStar: Generally perceived as more comprehensive for lease comps, listings, and broader market coverage, typically at higher cost. - CompStak: Commonly used for lease comps through crowdsourced data; may be preferable when deep lease comp coverage is required. - Trepp: Stronger for CRE debt, CMBS, and credit-oriented workflows. - RCA / MSCI Real Assets: Stronger for large-transaction-level capital markets intelligence. Customer testimonial comparisons and marketplace context: - Some third-party commentary frames Reonomy as a lower-cost option with fewer features compared with CoStar. - Community complaints about contract auto-renewals appear across multiple CRE data vendors, suggesting a category-level procurement risk; organizations should negotiate cancellation terms and document communications.

	Reonomy	CoStar	Crexi (Intelligence/PRO ecosystem)
Starting Price	Not publicly listed (sales-led); third-party estimates vary	Not publicly listed (typically reported as high; varies by agreement)	Intelligence pricing reported on third-party sites in the mid-hundreds per user/month (annual options available)
Primary use cases	Ownership mapping, off-market sourcing, list building; programmatic data access	Comprehensive listings, comps, and leasing research; institutional use cases	Marketplace plus data layer; self-serve entry for brokers and smaller teams
Key strength	Entity resolution (Reonomy ID) and ownership mapping; web application plus API/bulk feeds	Breadth and depth of listings/comps and leasing ecosystem (per industry commentary)	Marketplace and lower barrier to entry; growing data tooling (per vendor ecosystem materials)
Key weakness	Reported contact accuracy issues, CRM integration friction, and billing/contract complaints; pricing opacity	Reported cost and contract complexity	Data quality and contract/billing concerns reported in community discussions; may be less institutional in some features

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative analysis

Areas of relative strength:

Ownership and portfolio intelligence orientation: Reonomy focuses on resolving ownership entities and mapping ownership networks, which aligns with user reports about effectiveness in finding owners and mailing addresses.
Programmatic access: Reonomy provides documented API endpoints and promotes enterprise API and bulk data feeds.

Where competitors may outperform Reonomy:

CoStar: Generally perceived as more comprehensive for lease comps, listings, and broader market coverage, typically at higher cost.
CompStak: Commonly used for lease comps through crowdsourced data; may be preferable when deep lease comp coverage is required.
Trepp: Stronger for CRE debt, CMBS, and credit-oriented workflows.
RCA / MSCI Real Assets: Stronger for large-transaction-level capital markets intelligence.

Customer testimonial comparisons and marketplace context:

Some third-party commentary frames Reonomy as a lower-cost option with fewer features compared with CoStar.
Community complaints about contract auto-renewals appear across multiple CRE data vendors, suggesting a category-level procurement risk; organizations should negotiate cancellation terms and document communications.

	Reonomy	CoStar	Crexi (Intelligence/PRO ecosystem)
Starting Price	Not publicly listed (sales-led); third-party estimates vary	Not publicly listed (typically reported as high; varies by agreement)	Intelligence pricing reported on third-party sites in the mid-hundreds per user/month (annual options available)
Primary use cases	Ownership mapping, off-market sourcing, list building; programmatic data access	Comprehensive listings, comps, and leasing research; institutional use cases	Marketplace plus data layer; self-serve entry for brokers and smaller teams
Key strength	Entity resolution (Reonomy ID) and ownership mapping; web application plus API/bulk feeds	Breadth and depth of listings/comps and leasing ecosystem (per industry commentary)	Marketplace and lower barrier to entry; growing data tooling (per vendor ecosystem materials)
Key weakness	Reported contact accuracy issues, CRM integration friction, and billing/contract complaints; pricing opacity	Reported cost and contract complexity	Data quality and contract/billing concerns reported in community discussions; may be less institutional in some features