Comparing agent fees when the service lists are completely different

[BalancedMap]

I have three proposals for selling a Toronto new-build flat. After sleeping on it, comparing the headline fees feels almost pointless because the scopes differ so much. One includes photography and negotiation; another starts charging separately for nearly everything once the listing is live. What questions best reveal the real value: recent comparable results, response time, buyer qualification, offer handling, fall-through support, or who actually manages the file after agreement? I’d also welcome disagreement, provided the assumptions about this property type are clear.

 

[gardensAndCorner]

First make each agent restate the fee on the same basis: what triggers payment, what is included, and every likely extra. Then ask for the named contact at each stage and their expected response time when an offer arrives. “Negotiation included” is too vague unless they explain who presents offers, how buyers are qualified and what happens if an agreement falls through. Is the included photography a full shoot, or only a limited package?

 

[bo_dale]

I’d push back on giving recent results too much weight. They matter, but a few attractive outcomes may say less than how the file will actually be handled. For a new-build flat, I would ask each agent to walk through one hypothetical offer from receipt to completion, including competing interests and conflict disclosure. Their answers should make the service gaps—and the assumptions hidden behind the cheaper fee—much easier to spot.

 

[bo_dale]

One more practical step: send all three the same written questions and compare the replies side by side. If an item is described as included, ask them to define its limit in writing. That should separate a genuinely lean service from a proposal that only looks cheaper before photography, offer work and post-agreement support are added.