Compare HomeLight and Landed

For Sellers

Referred Agents
33%
Referral Fee
HomeLight does not provide real estate services to home sellers. Instead, this company matches consumers with various real estate agents in exchange for a 33% referral fee. HomeLight results suffer from pay-to-play bias because the network does not match consumers with agents unwilling to pay 33% of their commission to HomeLight.

For Sellers

Not applicable
0
No Rates
Landed does not provide real estate services to home buyers.

For Buyers

Referred Agents
33%
Referral Fee
HomeLight does not provide real estate services to home buyers. Instead, this company matches consumers with various real estate agents in exchange for a 33% referral fee. HomeLight results suffer from pay-to-play bias because the network does not match consumers with agents unwilling to pay 33% of their commission to HomeLight.

For Buyers

Referred Agents
30%
Referral Fee
Landed does not provide real estate services to home buyers. Instead, this company matches consumers with real estate agents in exchange for an estimated 30% referral fee. Landed results suffer from pay-to-play bias because the network does not match consumers with agents unwilling to pay 30% of their commission to Landed.

For Buyers

Origination Fee
0.75%
Home Value
Instead of working with Laded referred agents, consumers (teachers) can pay an origination fee equal to what the agent referral fee would have been: 0.75% of the total cost of the home.
Question: What is the difference between HomeLight and Landed?
Answer: Both HomeLight and Landed function as a referral fee network that enables broker-to-broker collusion with use of blanket referral agreements.
Compare HomeLight and Landed for home buying and selling. HomeOpenly is an impartial and an open resource focused on trending real estate services, portals and start-ups.

First published: 23 April 2019
Last updated: 25 April 2021

Buying and Selling with HomeLight

WARNING: Unlawful Kickbacks, Broker-to-Broker Collusion, False Marketing, Wire Fraud, Price Fixing.

HomeLight is a broker-to-broker collusion scheme, where "partner agents" unlawfully agree to pay massive kickbacks to receive your information and engage in market allocation, consumer allocation, false advertising, unlawful kickbacks, wire fraud, and price-fixing practices in violation of, inter alia, 18 U.S.C. § 1346, 18 U.S.C. § 1343, 15 U.S.C. § 1, 15 U.S.C. § 45, 12 U.S.C. § 2607, 12 C.F.R. § 1024.14. As a consumer, you will always significantly overpay for Realtor commissions subject to hidden kickbacks and pay-to-play steering promoted in this scheme.

United States federal antitrust laws prohibit consumer allocation and blanket referral agreements between real estate companies.

Be smart; do not allow your information to be "sold as a lead" to a double-dealing Realtor in exchange for massive commission kickbacks paid from your future home sale, or your future home purchase.


HomeLight is a referral fee network designed to collect fees by matching consumers with local real estate agents willing to participate. HomeLight operates as a licensed real estate brokerage in California under BRE License #01900940, but it does not produce any services that are typically offered by real estate agents and does not represent consumers when buying or selling real estate in any State.

When consumers submit information to HomeLight, this information is simply sold to real estate agents who are willing to pay for it with a 25% share of their commission.

HomeLight Pricing

HomeLight revenue comes from referral fees and sale of user data.

Listing Services

  • This Service Does Not Represent Sellers

Buyer's Agent Services

  • This Service Does Not Represent Buyers

HomeLight Editor's Review:

On paper, HomeLight seems to have a great idea – to provide its users with a list of the "most effective" real estate agents that are scrutinized across the board to systematically facilitate better offers for sellers and better terms for buyers.

HomeLight states that "our service is 100% free, with no catch. Agents don't pay us to be listed, so you get the best match." Digging deeper into Terms of Service the actual model turns out to be much less effective - HomeLight is a California licensed real estate broker that collects a 33% referral fee from all real estate agents that participate.

This fee makes it hardly a free service for anyone since referral fees are inevitably passed down to consumers.

More importantly, HomeLight applies this pay-to-play bias towards all matching results, meaning, only real estate agents that have agreed to pay a referral fee are displayed in match results for consumers.

HomeLight audits all transactions because it needs to find out how much money real estate agents receive in commissions, inevitably collecting private details of consumer's agreement for home purchase or sale.

HomeLight further claims to produce higher returns to consumers when selling, but there is absolutely no third-party evidence for this. HomeLight algorithm is self-proclaimed and is based on the data derived from MLS past transactions. There are any number of factors that affect the actual home value with no proven correlation to agent representation. In order to select a proper real estate agent, consumers need an open and a transparent information process that HomeLight is unable to provide.

HomeLight plays fees down to consumers - it states directly that the service is 100% free, but at the same time, it rigidly locks every participating real estate agent into 33% referral fee attached to the back-end of every contract. As a licensed real estate agent that doesn't perform any real estate services or takes any responsibility for the transaction, it is not entirely clear how this process works under the Business and Professions Code and RESPA.

Clearly, real estate agents only sign-up with HomeLight because the price of the referral fee can be easily incorporated into their client’s agreement with excessive commissions.

HomeLight receives the second lowest score because this service is clearly biased and it claims to provide the complete opposite of what it actually does. HomeLight has presented the following facts prior to the review getting published, but did not respond with any comments. HomeLight must be well aware of this issue but continues to operate on pay-to-play methodology in order to collect fees that needlessly make home buying and selling more expensive.

HomeLight Simple Sale™ Product

HomeLight further offers consumers a connection to local real estate developers that buy and flip homes for profit. According to the company, the majority of Simple Sale developers are only interested in purchasing off-market homes. HomeLight itself admits that 91 percent of sellers choose a real estate agent to list their home on the open market, but that does not stop it from an attempt to offer your information to developers as well.

HomeLight states it will show the seller their best iBuyer offer against an estimation for what they can sell a home in an open market with the help of an agent. The reality is HomeLight doesn’t care how your home is sold, as long as it receives a fee for directing you one way or another. It costs absolutely nothing to HomeLight to offer you a bad deal on selling your home to a real estate developer because this company is a referral fee network that is primarily interested in connecting consumers to anything that pays them a fee.

HomeLight does not state how much developers and iBuyers pay them for each successful lead, but according to third-party sources, HomeLight receives a 4% commission from the total value of your home. Remember, this fee comes from the real estate developer, so HomeLight for all practical reasons, works for that developer, not you. A developer will know that your home is off-market and it costs them absolutely nothing to give you a severely underpriced offer.

Typically, iBuyers cost consumers about 15%-20% of net equity from the home sale, when accounting for all fees and reduced cash offer against your home’s true value. Most developers will not take anything less of a 30% margin below market. The reason is developers experience high risks and double transaction costs when making an offer on your home, and HomeLight’s 4% commission on the sale is a very real closing fee to account for. The bank, on the other hand, does not care how you sell your home or for how much. Your mortgage company receives the same amount from the sale of your home, so these all excessive costs work directly against your net equity as a seller. If you are seriously considering Simple Sale offer made to you using HomeLight, the best way to approach it is with your own real estate agent who does not pay any referral fees to HomeLight.

Of course, matching you with a competitive agent to list your home on the open market is something HomeLight is not built for. Remember, HomeLight is a broker that is interested in receiving a referral fee for any match. If HomeLight does not receive payment of some sort from a broker, you will never see them on their platform. When you use a broker sent to you by HomeLight, you are paying for two brokers.

Consumer Steering

Some consumers who receive a recommendation for the three local HomeLight partner agents will often proclaim that the process of selecting a Realtor is very simple and that they have experienced excellent results.

The question stands, why doesn’t the editor’s review for HomeLight extend a similar recommendation? The difference is that the editor’s review focuses directly on the quality of HomeLight brokerage as an information channel, while most consumers tend to combine HomeLight brokerage with an experience provided by HomeLight partner brokers into a single experience. From an editor’s perspective, these are not the same.

The way consumers find a real estate professional must be unbiased and free from pay-to-play incentives in order to be considered as a quality channel.

HomeLight brokerage offers an excellent channel that proactively steers consumers toward a highly selected pool of partner brokers who have a blanket referral agreement with them, in an exchange for a significant share of their commission.

This is a very different experience than having to genuinely rate local agents and offer an unbiased recommendation. HomeLight has a direct financial incentive to steer consumers toward brokers who charge higher commissions.

Moreover, HomeLight brokerage operates by excluding itself from the competition with partner agents. In the United States, it is unlawful for real estate professionals to allocate consumers or organize into broker referral networks by means of blanket referral agreements.

HomeLight is a brokerage and it must compete with other brokers, instead, the company organizes brokers into a network in order to receive a cut of their commission. Real estate professionals working with HomeLight no longer compete for consumers, but rather compete for HomeLight to steer their business.

HomeLight consistently applies a logical fallacy called “Appeal to Authority” where it states that their partner agents are the best simply because the company has done some sort of “black box” research without actionable reasoning to support the claim. HomeLight algorithm is biased by default, simply because it will only match consumers with partner agents, and not all local agents.

HomeLight cannot actually rate all local agents and publically disclose this data, simply because agents who are rated badly will argue that the system of rating is flawed – not all transactions are recorded in the MLS, it is impossible to truly determine the quality of agents based on data provided in the MLS, some agents will underprice homes to sell them quicker, etc. Consumers are legally allowed to rate their experience with services in the United States. Unbiased channels such as Yelp! freely offer unbiased medium with good information where brokers cannot buy their recommendations with referral fees, or offer consumers gift cards to write reviews.

HomeLight only offers three best choices, simply because these agents will not argue with that determination, in fact, they are willing to provide a kickback of their commission for the privilege.

All of these reasons combined are why the editor’s review rating is so much different from positive consumer reviews. The editor’s rating focuses on the fairness of the process, rather than the individual outcome. In order to promote fair practices in the industry, we place a very different value on pay-to-play steering vs. unbiased match results.

Is HomeLight Free?

HomeLight often proclaims that its “service is 100% free.” We find this statement to be false. HomeLight is not free, in fact, this “paper” brokerage adds unnecessary referral fees into transactions that make it more expensive to buy or sell any home.

Eventually, HomeLight is a brokerage and their fees are paid by consumers with higher commissions. HomeLight further claims that “agents don't pay us to be listed, so you get the best match.” This is a use of a “Modal Logical Fallacy” because it specifically concludes that because something is true, it is necessarily true, and there is no other situation that would cause the statement to be false. Simply because agents don’t pay HomeLight to be listed, doesn’t mean that agents don’t pay HomeLight at all. In fact, HomeLight actively steers consumers toward agents who pay them, just after the transaction.

As of 2019, HomeLight claims to have made a successful match for about 390,000 people with agents. The median home price of a home in the United States is about $230,000. Multiplying the two figures yields about $100 Billion in home sales. Assuming a 5-6% commission, this yields about $5 to $6 Billion in real estate commission business generated nationwide. In the recent Crunchbase article HomeLight claims to have “driven well over $17 billion of real estate business nationwide,” which indicates that HomeLight works with homes above the median price. Simply stated, HomeLight has collected a “standard” 25% (presently, 33%) referral fee on commissions valued anywhere from $5 to $17 Billion since its inception in 2012.

This yields a mind-blowing estimate set at $1.25 to $4.25 Billion in commission kickbacks paid to HomeLight from participating brokers across the United States. Almost all of it is profit since HomeLight doesn’t perform any services typically offered by real estate brokers.

HomeLight advertises a 100% free service, yet it subjects consumers to Billions in added fees in one of the most important transactions of their lives.

Update: on November 4, 2021, HomeLight has originated a request to the editor asking for this review to be removed.

The following is a pdf link to the notice originated by HomeLight, dated November 4, 2021.

The following is a pdf link to the reply written by the editor of this review, dated November 9, 2021.

Content of the Editor's Review published herein is presently challanged via legal action filed by HomeLight, Inc. brokerage in U.S. District Court California Northern District. HomeOpenly has, in turn, countersued HomeLight, Inc. brokerage. The following is select/most relevant public court docket information that describes the general nature and premise of the on-going dispute. To view complete public case information, you may visit the official docket information portal for the Northern District of California

Case: Homelight, Inc. v. Shkipin et al
Civil Case No.: 3:22-cv-03119-TLT
Date Filed: May 27, 2022
Trial Date: April 1, 2024
Jury Demand: Both
Nature of Suit: 840 Trademark; 410 Antitrust
Jurisdiction: Federal Question
Cause: 15:1114 Trademark Infri mngement; 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act); 15:1 Antitrust Litigation; 15:2 Antitrust Litigation.

05/27/2022 Docket No. 1 COMPLAINT for Trademark Infringement (15 U.S.C. § 1114) and Lanham Act Section 43(A) False Advertising (15 U.S.C. §1125 (A)) against Dmitry Shkipin, et al. Filed by Homelight, Inc.

06/18/2022 Docket No. 15 First MOTION to Dismiss COMPLAINT filed by Dmitry Shkipin.

06/18/2022 Docket No. 16 ANSWER to Complaint with Demand for Jury Trial by Dmitry Shkipin.

06/18/2022 Docket No. 17 COUNTERCLAIM FOR RESTRAINT OF TRADE (15 U.S.C. § 1); ATTEMPTED MONOPOLIZATION (15 U.S.C. § 2); MISLEADING TRADEMARK USE (15 U.S.C. § 1125); AND UNFAIR PRACTICES (CA BUS. & PROF. CODE § 172000) against Homelight, Inc. Filed by Dmitry Shkipin.

06/22/2022 Docket No. 18 First MOTION to Dismiss A SINGLE PARTY UNDER FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE RULE 21 filed by Dmitry Shkipin.

07/05/2022 Docket No. 20 OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 15 First MOTION to Dismiss COMPLAINT ) (Homelight, Inc.s Opposition to Defendant Shkipins First Motion to Dismiss Complaint) filed by Homelight, Inc.

07/05/2022 Docket No. 21 OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 18 First MOTION to Dismiss A SINGLE PARTY UNDER FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE RULE 21 ) Homelight, Inc.s Opposition to Defendant Shkipins First Motion to Dismiss a Single Party filed by Homelight, Inc.

07/07/2022 Docket No. 23 REPLY (re 15 First MOTION to Dismiss COMPLAINT ) DEFENDANTS REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION filed by Dmitry Shkipin.

07/07/2022 Docket No. 24 REPLY (re 18 First MOTION to Dismiss A SINGLE PARTY UNDER FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE RULE 21 ) DEFENDANTS REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION filed by Dmitry Shkipin.

08/01/2022 Docket No. 28 MOTION to Dismiss Counterclaims filed by Homelight, Inc.

08/05/2022 Docket No. 30 OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 28 MOTION to Dismiss Counterclaims ) CROSS-CLAIMANT SHKIPINS OPPOSITION TO CROSS-CLAIM DEFENDANT HOMELIGHTS MOTION TO DISMISS CROSS-COMPLAINT filed by Dmitry Shkipin.

08/24/2022 Docket No. 34 REPLY (re 28 MOTION to Dismiss Counterclaims ) [Plaintiff Homelight, Inc.'s Reply in Support of its Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims] filed by Homelight, Inc.

10/27/2022 Docket No. 47 First MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Dmitry Shkipin.

10/28/2022 Docket No. 48 ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO DISMISS by Judge Trina L. Thompson denying 15 Motion to Dismiss; denying 18 Motion to Dismiss.

10/28/2022 Docket No. 50 Second MOTION to Dismiss COMPLAINT filed by Dmitry Shkipin.

11/10/2022 Docket No. 54 INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER filed by Dmitry Shkipin.

11/16/2022 Docket No. 56 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT (Homelight, Inc.'s Updated Initial Case Management Statement and [Proposed] Order) filed by Homelight, Inc.

01/02/2023 Docket No. 63 MOTION to Expedite MOTION TO WAIVE MOTION HEARING AND SUBMIT ON PAPERS HOMELIGHT, INC.S MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTERCLAIMS filed by Dmitry Shkipin.

01/17/2023 Docket No. 64 OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 63 MOTION to Expedite MOTION TO WAIVE MOTION HEARING AND SUBMIT ON PAPERS HOMELIGHT, INC.S MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTERCLAIMS ) Cross-Motion to Vacate Pending Briefing Deadlines to Accommodate Settlement Conference Delays filed by Homelight, Inc.

02/17/2023 Docket No. 70 STATUS REPORT HOMEOPENLYS ADR STATUS REPORT FOR FEB. 17, 2023 by Dmitry Shkipin.

04/20/2023 Docket No. 81 STATUS REPORT HOMEOPENLYS ADR STATUS REPORT FOR APR. 17, 2023 by Dmitry Shkipin.

05/16/2023 Docket No. 93 OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re [50] Second MOTION to Dismiss COMPLAINT ) filed by Homelight, Inc.

05/16/2023 Docket No. 94 OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re [47] First MOTION for Preliminary Injunction ) (Homelight, Inc.'s Opposition to Defendant Shkipin's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction) filed by Homelight, Inc.

05/17/2023 Docket No. 95 REPLY (re [47] First MOTION for Preliminary Injunction ) HOMEOPENLY'S REPLY TO HOMELIGHT, INC.S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION filed by Dmitry Shkipin.

05/17/2023 Docket No. 96 REPLY (re [50] Second MOTION to Dismiss COMPLAINT ) HOMEOPENLY'S REPLY TO HOMELIGHT, INC.S OPPOSITION TO SECOND MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT filed by Dmitry Shkipin.

09/27/23 Docket No. 123 ORDER DISMISSING COUNTERCLAIMS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND Re: Dkt. Nos. 17, 28 by United States District Judge P. CASEY PITTS

10/18/23 Docket No. 123 FIRST AMENDED COUNTER-COMPLAINT FOR RESTRAINT OF TRADE (15 U.S.C. § 1); ATTEMPTED MONOPOLIZATION (15 U.S.C. § 2); FALSE ADVERTISING (15 U.S.C. § 1125); UNLAWFUL, UNFAIR, AND FRAUDULENT PRACTICES (CA BUS. & PROF. CODE § 17200) filed by Dmitry Shkipin

Where does HomeLight operate?

HomeLight currently operates in select areas across United States.

Buying and Selling with Landed

WARNING: Unlawful Kickbacks, Broker-to-Broker Collusion, False Marketing, Wire Fraud, Price Fixing.

Landed is a broker-to-broker collusion scheme, where "partner agents" unlawfully agree to pay massive kickbacks to receive your information and engage in market allocation, consumer allocation, false advertising, unlawful kickbacks, wire fraud, and price-fixing practices in violation of, inter alia, 18 U.S.C. § 1346, 18 U.S.C. § 1343, 15 U.S.C. § 1, 15 U.S.C. § 45, 12 U.S.C. § 2607, 12 C.F.R. § 1024.14. As a consumer, you will always significantly overpay for Realtor commissions subject to hidden kickbacks and pay-to-play steering promoted in this scheme.

United States federal antitrust laws prohibit consumer allocation and blanket referral agreements between real estate companies.

Be smart; do not allow your information to be "sold as a lead" to a double-dealing Realtor in exchange for massive commission kickbacks paid from your future home sale, or your future home purchase.


Landed is a referral fee network designed to collect fees by matching consumers with local real estate agents willing to participate. Landed operates as a licensed real estate brokerage in California under BRE License #01988003, but it does not produce any services that are typically offered by real estate agents and does not represent consumers when buying or selling real estate in any State.

Landed targets financially constrained consumer groups (teachers for now, but it soon plans to expand services to other professionals such as registered nurses, etc.) with a 10% down payment assistance option to co-invest when buying a home in expensive cities like San Francisco, Denver, Los Angeles, and Seattle.

The origination price of using the program, however, is hidden in referral fees that the company receives from each transaction when consumers work with agents referred by Landed.

Instead of working with Laded referred agents, consumers can pay an origination fee equal to what the agent referral fee would have been: 0.75% of the total cost of the home.

For example, if a consumer were to purchase a $1 million home, the origination fee equal to $7,500 would have to be paid in order to secure $100,000 down payment assistance. If the required down payment assistance amount is less, the fee would still remain the same. For example, if a consumer only wants to secure $50,000 in assistance, the origination fee still equals to $7,500 because this fee is based on the overall home value.

Landed also uses a select group of mortgage lenders who are specifically approved by the program. It is unclear what incentives are provided to Landed by these providers, or if consumers are able to use their own mortgage lender.

Landed Pricing

Landed revenue comes from either an estimated 30% broker referral fees, or origination fees set at 0.75% of purchased home value.

Chan Zuckerberg Initiative (CZI) provides cash funds to run the program. The 25% of the appreciation (or loss) in the price of the home upon sale is returned to Chan Zuckerberg Initiative and re-invested back into a down payment support fund.

Listing Services

  • This Service Does Not Represent Sellers

Buyer's Agent Services

  • This Service Does Not Represent Buyers

Landed Editor's Review:

On paper Landed seems to have a great idea – to help essential professionals (starting with educators) build financial security near the communities they serve. Digging deeper into the actual model turns out to be much less effective - Landed is a California licensed real estate broker that collects an estimated 30% referral fee from all real estate agents that participate. This fee makes it hardly a free service for anyone since referral fees are inevitably passed down to consumers. More importantly, Landed drives consumers toward agents who systematically price their services to accommodate such fees, this process is known as kickbacks.

Landed assistance program itself may be beneficial, but the costs of origination are certainly real. Landed uses excessive referral fees as a way to hide origination fees. Why? Simply because having to pay $7,500 to secure $100,000 down payment assistance (that comes with many strings attached, as well as a lien) seems a lot less attractive, especially when this fee remains the same, regardless of the assistance amount actually required.

By charging this fee as a form of commission kickbacks, the company hopes that most consumers won’t realize that this fee even exists – it is just a referral fee, who cares? In this review, we will show you how this fee very much exists and why it matters. Consumers can save tens of thousands by avoiding non-competitive real estate commissions, even if the buyer (teacher) decides to opt-in into Landed assistance program and pay the origination fee out-of-pocket.

Buyer’s refunds are available in all areas Landed currently offers an assistance program. The only way to take advantage of these savings is by negotiating with highly competitive real estate professionals without any referral fee agreements in place.

Buyer’s agents never work for free, instead, they can financially compete for consumers by offering refunds in 40 States. This is a legal incentive that helps to lower the cost of owning a home and is a growing trend in the industry.

Real estate agents only sign-up with Landed referral network because the price of the referral fee can be easily incorporated into their client’s agreement with excessive commissions. Landed either requires the use of their network, or it requires an origination fee to be paid, there is no third option.

As a licensed real estate agent that doesn’t perform any real estate services or takes any responsibility for the transaction, it is not entirely clear how Landed is able to operate under the Business and Professions Code and RESPA.

Nonetheless, funds from Chan Zuckerberg Initiative fund is a real incentive that consumers are able to utilize in exchange for a 25% share of the investment gain or loss with Landed (if Landed contributes less than 10% down, the future appreciation/depreciation sharing also changes proportionally. For every 1% Landed contributes, Landed shares in 2.5% of the appreciation (or depreciation, if any.)

In order to place benefits and costs of the program into perspective, we ran local results against HomeOpenly to see who offers buyer’s refunds in one of the areas Landed serves – San Francisco, CA.

We used a random home valued at around $1 Million to generate these results (as of April 2019.) Among various savings offers from local agents, we found two highly reputable agents (including a VC-backed flat fee agent that aims to deliver savings to consumers.)

Among these results, one agent offers 65% rebate that yields a buyer’s refund amount estimated at $19,500 and another offers $9,950 flat representation fee that yields buyer’s refund amount estimated at $20,050.

For the purpose of this discussion, these competitive saving, in the form of a refund, are about $20,000 (assuming 3% buyer’s agent commission split offered by the seller’s agent.) Home buyers do not pay any taxes on the amount, the refund is always tax-free, similar to any other service refund.

Now, the buyer can take this refund check of $20,000 pay the Landed origination fee out-of-pocket set at $7,500 and still walk away with $12,500 in cash savings. Why? These savings agents are highly competitive and advertise their rates subject to 0% referral fees.

HomeOpenly works with real estate agents that genuinely lower the cost of homeownership. The fact is, if the buyer doesn’t do this, the total expense of using Landed referral network plus the commission is $30,000 ($7,500 referral fee paid to Landed, plus $22,500 of the remaining commissions buyer’s agent actually keeps).

Using Landed referral network, in this case, means leaving $12,500 on the table. Instead, a teacher can easily engage a great competitive agent, receive $20,000 amount as a refund, and only pay origination fee out-of-pocket set at $7,500.

In this review, we separate issue to secure down payment assistance with an ability to negotiate a competitive refund with your agent subject to 0% referral fees. We bring this origination fee to full transparency so that there no illusion on how Landed service actually operates and why it steers consumers toward their referral network.

You, the teacher, have to take into account the fact that you pay all homeownership expenses, county taxes, maintenance, insurance, interest and closing costs (you pay the costs of ownership, but you don’t make any monthly payments to Landed.) As such, home appreciation you gain comes at a very high price, while the origination fee is something that you pay upfront, either out-of-pocket or with excessive commissions.

Is $7,500 origination fee a worthy expense to secure down payment assistance? You have to decide this.

This simple test aims to point out that $20,000 in buyers refund is available to buyers in this situation when working with the right local agents. When using Landed referral fee network agents, the refund amount is likely to be zero.

Moreover, non-competitive fees offered by Landed referred agents will become incorporated into a mortgage payment, and instead of the consumer getting a tax-free refund, these fees further incur mortgage interest for the duration of the mortgage.

Landed receives the second lowest score because this service is clearly biased toward high-priced real estate agents, as it aims to brush off the true costs of origination fees set at 0.75% of purchased home value, typically hidden in referral fee agreements.

Landed was presented the following questions prior to the review getting published, but Landed has not responded with any comments.

  • Whenever the consumer approaches Landed, with their own buyer’s agent, what is the origination fee amount they would be required to pay in order to use the service?
  • Are consumers able to negotiate a buyer’s refund in California with agents who are part of Landed referral network?
  • What is the referral fee percentage or amount Landed charges real estate agents in the network?
  • What happens in cases where the consumer is looking to buy FSBO listed home, where there is no listing agent and no buyer’s agent commission is offered by the seller?

Landed must be well aware of these issues, but continues to operate on pay-to-play methodology in order to collect origination and referral fees that needlessly make home buying and selling more expensive, while claiming that it makes homeownership more affordable.

Teachers should certainly not ignore Landed as an option, but with a full understanding that there may better terms available to them elsewhere for buyer’s representation, and that this program comes with high fees attached.

Where does Landed operate?

Landed currently operates in select areas across California (San Francisco Bay Area, Los Angeles Metro Area, and San Diego Metro Area), Colorado (Denver and Boulder metro areas), and Washington (King County Metro Area)..