Platform · Secondary property portals

Secondary Property Portal Data

Q: How do we know if it is worth collecting?

We measure it. unique_to_portal_share is reported per batch and per region — the proportion of clustered properties appearing on this portal and not the leader. If that share is low we will say so and suggest not collecting it. A secondary portal that duplicates the leader adds cost and no coverage.

The second portal in a market is not a smaller version of the first. It carries different agencies, and therefore different stock.

Secondary property portal data covers the second and third portals in markets where a leader dominates. The reason to collect them is not volume: a secondary portal is not a subset of the leader. Agency relationships differ, exclusivity arrangements differ, and some stock appears on one and not the other — so a single-portal panel has a coverage gap that is structural rather than random.

It is easy to assume the biggest portal has everything and the rest have less of the same. In most markets that is not how it works.

Get a free sample See sample data

Free pilot on your own Secondary property portals list, returned in 24 hours. No card, no trial clock — and you keep the sample data either way.

secondary_portals.jsonl LIVE FEED

{"portal":"portal-secondary","portal_rank_in_market":2, "country":"ES","region":"Example region", "listing_id":"sp-44120", "property_cluster_id":"pc-7710","cluster_scope":"cross_portal", "unique_to_portal":false, "price":249000,"cluster_price_spread_pct":4.0, "note":"same property, both portals, 4% apart. two agencies, different instructions"} {"listing_id":"sp-88120","unique_to_portal":true, "unique_to_portal_share":0.218, "note":"21.8% of clusters here are NOT on the leader. that is the coverage gap"} {"region":"Example region 2","unique_to_portal_share":0.041, "recommendation":"do_not_collect_this_region", "caution":"4% unique. adds cost, adds no coverage. we say so"}

3 of 1,404,880 listing rows · paired with market leadersunique-to-portal share is the number that justifies the cost · schema v1.0

Independence and trademarks. Actowiz Solutions is not affiliated with, endorsed by or connected to Secondary property portals or its owners. Secondary property portals and related marks belong to their respective owners, used here only to name the publicly accessible source this service collects from.

Our Data Powers

B2C Marketplace

amazon

D2C + Marketplace

NYKAA

D2C + Marketplace

Walmart

FMCG Marketplace

udaan

Food Delivery

Uber Eats

Quick Commerce

blinkit

Taxi Aggregator

Uber

E-Commerce

Tmall

Secondary property portals at a glance

How we handle Secondary property portals specifically

Platform-specific handling, not a generic retail template pointed at a different domain.

Scope: Second and third portals in markets with a dominant leader
The assumption to drop: A secondary portal is not a subset of the leader
Why: Agency relationships and exclusivity arrangements differ
Consequence: A single-portal panel has a structural coverage gap
What we report: Unique-to-portal share, which is the number that justifies the cost
Duplication: Cross-portal clustering, not just within-portal
Mechanics: Identical to the leader's page for that market
Refresh: Daily, matched to the leader's schedule so clusters align

Platform specifics

Why the second portal carries different stock

These are the reasons a Secondary property portals dataset needs its own handling rather than a shared retail schema.

Agency relationships, not volume, decide what appears where

Property portals do not list property. They list agency mandates, and which agencies list where is a commercial relationship rather than a technical one.

Some agencies list exclusively on one portal, by agreement or by cost.
Pricing and terms differ between portals, so smaller agencies frequently choose one.
A portal's regional strength varies — a leader nationally may be second in a specific region.
Some portals are agency-owned or agency-backed, which changes which agencies use them.

The result is that the second portal in a market carries stock the leader does not have, and the share varies by market and by region within it.

The number that decides whether it is worth collecting

We report unique_to_portal_share per batch and per region — the proportion of clustered properties that appear on this portal and not on the leader.

If that share is low, we will say so and suggest not collecting it. A secondary portal that duplicates the leader adds cost and no coverage, and the only way to know which is to measure it.

Cross-portal clustering is the technical requirement

Collecting two portals in one market is not useful unless the same property can be identified across them.

Duplication within a portal is the familiar agent-mandate problem.
Duplication across portals is the same property listed by the same or different agencies on both.
Without cross-portal clustering, combining two portals doubles your apparent supply.

property_cluster_id spans portals, with cluster_scope naming whether a cluster is within-portal or cross-portal, and cluster_confidence as everywhere. Individual listings are retained, so a price difference between portals for the same property stays visible.

That price difference is itself a finding: the same property advertised at different prices on two portals usually means two agencies with different instructions, which is worth seeing rather than averaging away.

Schedules must match

Clusters only align if the portals are observed on the same schedule. A leader collected daily and a secondary collected weekly produces clusters that appear and disappear for scheduling reasons.

We hold the schedule identical across portals in a market and record observation_interval_minutes.

Everything else is the leader's page

Beyond coverage and clustering, a secondary portal in a market behaves like the leader. The national conventions are the market's, not the portal's.

UK — tenure and remaining lease term, sold STC as its own state. See our Zoopla page.
Spain and Italy — heavy agent duplication and area-basis conventions. See our Idealista page.
Germany — cold versus warm rent, and two energy certificate types. See our ImmobilienScout24 page.
Netherlands and Belgium — the price basis question. See our Funda page.
Nordics — published sale prices where they exist. See our Hemnet page.

So this page is deliberately narrow: it is about why you would collect a second portal at all, and what has to be true for it to be worth it. The market mechanics live on the leader's page.

Scope

What we collect on Secondary property portals, and what we do not

The right column matters more than the left. Anyone can list fields; the limits are what tell you whether the dataset will hold up.

✅ What we collect

unique_to_portal_share reported per batch and per region
A recommendation not to collect where that share is low
property_cluster_id spanning portals, with cluster_scope named
Individual listings retained, so cross-portal price differences stay visible
Identical observation schedule across portals in a market
observation_interval_minutes recorded
All market conventions handled as on the leader's page
Agency name as a commercial entity
price_type constant asking

❌ What we do not, and why

Two portals combined without cross-portal clustering
A secondary portal sold where it duplicates the leader
Clusters built across portals observed on different schedules
A cross-portal price difference averaged away
Individual agent names, numbers or photographs

Core Secondary property portals fields

The full dictionary is agreed during scoping. These are the fields specific to this platform.

Field	What it is on this platform
portal / portal_rank_in_market	Which portal, and its position
listing_id / agency_name / country / region	The listing, agency and geography
property_cluster_id / cluster_scope / cluster_confidence	Grouping, whether cross-portal, and how sure
unique_to_portal	Whether this cluster appears only here
unique_to_portal_share	Per batch and region. The number that justifies the cost
cluster_price_spread_pct	Where the same property differs across portals
price / price_type	Asking, with the type constant
observation_interval_minutes	So clusters align rather than flicker
market_convention_fields	As the leader's page for that market defines them
first_seen / last_seen	Lifecycle
observed_at	Timestamp

Use cases

What teams do with Secondary property portals data

Closing a structural coverage gap

Stock that appears on a secondary portal and not the leader, which a single-portal panel misses for commercial rather than random reasons — so the gap does not average out.

Cross-portal price differences

The same clustered property advertised at different prices on two portals, which usually means two agencies with different instructions and is worth seeing rather than merging.

Regional coverage correction

Portal strength varies by region within a market, so a national leader may be second in a specific area — measurable only by collecting both.

Deciding whether a second portal is worth it

unique_to_portal_share measured before you commit, with a recommendation against collecting where the share is low.

The 24-hour sample — run on your sources, not ours

Send us a Secondary property portals item or category list. We run real collection against it and return the output within 24 hours, with the platform-specific fields populated so you can check them yourself rather than take our word for it.

Real extraction from your actual sources
Returned within 24 hours
Coverage and QA note included
You keep the data either way
No card, no trial clock
Named engineer on the call

Get my free sample Book a 20-min scoping call Reply within one business day. Reference calls available under NDA.

How we engage

Three ways to engage us

Same collection pipeline and QA underneath. The difference is who holds the schedule and how the data reaches you.

Managed service (most common)

We own the collection, the QA and the delivery. You receive clean data on a schedule and never touch a scraper.

Dedicated engineer assigned to your account
Site changes fixed by us, not reported to you
Scheduled delivery to your warehouse or S3
Named contact on Slack or email

Best fit: Teams who need the data, not the infrastructure.

API access

The same collection pipeline exposed as an authenticated REST endpoint your systems query directly.

On-demand and scheduled endpoints
Rate limits agreed to your load profile
Sandbox keys for integration testing
Versioned schema with deprecation notice

Best fit: Product and engineering teams building on live data.

One-time or project extraction

A defined pull for a specific question — market sizing, diligence, a pitch, a one-off audit.

Fixed scope agreed in writing upfront
Single delivery with full QA report
Methodology documented for your records
Converts to managed if you want continuity

Best fit: Research, strategy and diligence work with a deadline.

Pricing

Every engagement is quoted individually, because the honest answer depends on your scope: how many sources, how many records, how often, and how the data reaches you. We scope it with you, run a free pilot on your own sources, and then quote a fixed monthly figure — no per-request metering and no overage billing when volumes move. Request a quote and you will have a number after one call.

Secondary property portals is usually collected alongside its competitors

Almost nobody buys a single platform in isolation. Secondary property portals data becomes useful when it sits next to the competitor set on one schema, refreshed on one schedule, so a price index or availability comparison is genuinely like-for-like.

That is what real estate data covers, and a Secondary property portals-only engagement can be expanded into it without rebuilding. If you already know you need several platforms, start there instead — it is the same pipeline and usually the better scoping conversation.

FAQ

Secondary property portals data scraping: frequently asked questions

Platform-specific questions, including what cannot be collected here.

Usually not. Portals list agency mandates, and which agencies list where is a commercial relationship — some list exclusively on one portal, by agreement or by cost, and smaller agencies frequently choose one.

So the second portal carries stock the leader does not have, and the share varies by market and by region within it.

We measure it. unique_to_portal_share is reported per batch and per region — the proportion of clustered properties appearing on this portal and not the leader.

If that share is low we will say so and suggest not collecting it. A secondary portal that duplicates the leader adds cost and no coverage.

Combining two portals doubles your apparent supply, because the same property listed on both is counted twice.

Cross-portal clustering is the technical requirement that makes multi-portal collection useful rather than misleading.

Because clusters only align if the portals are observed together. A leader collected daily and a secondary collected weekly produces clusters that appear and disappear for scheduling reasons rather than market ones.

We hold the schedule identical across portals in a market and record the interval.

Those are the market's, not the portal's, and they are handled as on the leader's page — UK tenure, Spanish duplication and area basis, German cold rent, Dutch price basis, Nordic published sale prices.

This page is deliberately narrow: it is about why you would collect a second portal at all.

Less than the first, because the market conventions and schema are already built. The additional cost is collection plus cross-portal clustering.

One scoping call, a free pilot within 24 hours including unique-to-portal share, then a fixed monthly quote. Request a quote.

See real Secondary property portals data before you commit to anything

Send us an item or category list. We return the output within 24 hours with the platform-specific fields populated.

Get a free sample Talk to an engineer

Free pilot, no card, no obligation. If we cannot collect a field you need on this platform, the sample shows you that too.

Hear It Directly from Our Clients

Watch how businesses like yours are using Actowiz data to drive growth.

▶

1 min

★★★★★

"Actowiz Solutions offered exceptional support with transparency and guidance throughout. Anna and Saga made the process easy for a non-technical user like me. Great service, fair pricing!"

Thomas Galido

Co-Founder / Head of Product at Upright Data Inc.

▶

2 min

★★★★★

"Actowiz delivered impeccable results for our company. Their team ensured data accuracy and on-time delivery. The competitive intelligence completely transformed our pricing strategy."

Iulen Ibanez

CEO / Datacy.es

▶

1:30

★★★★★

"What impressed me most was the speed — we went from requirement to production data in under 48 hours. The API integration was seamless and the support team is always responsive."

Febbin Chacko

-Fin, Small Business Owner