Zillow Q3 2021 iBuyer Report
In Q3, homeowners sold 27,244 homes worth a total of $10.6 billion using an iBuying service. iBuyer market share reached 1.9% in Q3, a new record.
Written by Zillow Research on December 7, 2021
- In Q3, homeowners sold 27,244 homes worth a total of $10.6 billion using an iBuying service. iBuyer market share reached 1.9% in Q3, surpassing the previous high of 1% set in Q2 2021.
- The median markup for homes bought and sold by iBuyers in Q3 fell to 1.8% from 6.7% the previous quarter. In several metros, the typical home bought by an iBuyer in Q3 sold at a loss.
- Homeowners in Phoenix, Atlanta, Dallas–Fort Worth, Houston and Charlotte sold the most homes using an iBuying service in Q3.
Fresh off a record-setting Q2 2021, the number of homes bought and then sold by iBuyers set new highs last quarter, a Zillow® analysis shows. As home prices rose across the country, the homes iBuyers purchased were more expensive than ever, and the markup when those homes were sold fell significantly from previous quarters’ markups.
Instant buyers, commonly known as iBuyers, are home-buying and -selling services that typically buy off-market homes directly from sellers at market rate and, after making light repairs and updates, quickly list them for sale on the open market. In the 36 largest iBuyer markets, homeowners sold 27,244 homes in Q3 using one of the four largest iBuying services: Opendoor, Zillow Offers, Offerpad and RedfinNow. That represents 1.9% of all U.S. home sales last quarter, and exceeds the previous record of 14,961 homes set in Q2 of this year. Those iBuyers sold 10,728 homes during the same period, also a record high.
Amid record home value appreciation, iBuyers paid more for homes in Q3 than in any previous quarter. The median price of home sales using an iBuying service was $376,000 last quarter, up from $333,000 in Q2 and 13.9% higher than the overall Q3 U.S. median sale price of $329,970.
Of homes that were bought and sold by an iBuyer in Q3, the median markup — the difference between the purchase price and sale price — was 1.8%. That is down from a revised 6.7% markup for homes purchased by iBuyers in Q2 and eventually sold, and a peak of 8.6% for homes purchased by iBuyers in Q1. In eight metros, the typical home bought by an iBuyer in Q3 sold at a loss. The biggest median losses were in Austin (-7.7%), Fort Collins (-3.7%) and Colorado Springs (-2.5%).
Phoenix overtook Q2 2021 leader Atlanta as the market with the most homes sold using an iBuyer, followed by Dallas–Fort Worth, Houston and Charlotte. Homeowners in Phoenix sold $1.47 billion worth of homes using an iBuying service last quarter, the first time a market has broken the $1 billion mark.
In three metros, more than 1 in 10 homes sold last quarter were sold using an iBuyer: Greensboro (13.9%), Phoenix (12.1%) and Tucson (11%). The fastest-growing iBuyer markets in terms of number of iBuyer purchases are Colorado Springs (+266.2% since Q2), Austin (+184.4%), Fort Collins (+159.4%), Miami (+152.1%) and Cincinnati (+149.5%).
iBuyers typically held the homes they sold in Q3 for 94 days, which includes getting the home ready to sell, the time the home spent on the market and the time it took to close. That’s about a month longer than the record low of 63 days in Q2. The normal seasonal cooling of the housing market returned in Q3, contributing to the longer typical hold time. Across the U.S., typical days on market increased, for-sale inventory finally began to rise, and price cuts became more common.
n
| - | n Total iBuyer Purchases n | n iBuyer Market Share n | n Median Price – iBuyer Purchases n | n Total iBuyer Re-Sales n | n Median Markup – iBuyer Sales n | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n Metro Area* n | n Q3 2021 n | n Q2 2021 n | n Q3 2021 n | n Q2 2021 n | n Q3 2021 n | n Q2 2021 n | n Q3 2021 n | n Q2 2021 n | n Q3 2021 n | n Q2 2021 n |
| United States | n 27,244 n | n 14,961 n | n 1.9% n | 1.0% | $375,800 | $332,950 | 10,728 | 7,395 | 1.8% | 6.7% |
| n Phoenix, AZ n | n 3,305 n | >1,672 | 12.1% | 5.5% | $433,301 | $391,000 | 1,320 | 844 | 0.0% | n 4.3% n |
| Atlanta, GA | n 3,033 n | 2,083 | 8.5% | 5.4% | $315,900 | $277,050 | 1,379 | 1,188 | 3.3% | 8.8% |
| n Dallas–Fort Worth, TX n | 2,167 | >1,328 | 6.9% | 4.3% | $366,429 | $312,981 | 1,004 | >611 | -0.9% | n 7.3% n |
| n Houston, TX n | n 1,587 n | >859 | 5.1% | 2.8% | $294,000 | $277,400 | >677 | >331 | 1.0% | 4.4% |
| n Charlotte, NC n | 1,534 | 874 | 9.5% | 5.3% | $325,593 | $290,650 | 768 | 397 | 3.7% | n 6.7% n |
| n Tampa, FL n | n 1,209 n | 621 | 5.8% | 2.8% | $319,117 | $275,800 | 512 | 352 | 4.1% | 9.3% |
| n Jacksonville, FL n | 1,018 | 483 | 9.4% | 4.2% | $299,050 | $259,500 | 383 | 239 | 2.9% | n 8.1% n |
| Las Vegas, NV | n 971 n | 532 | 7.7% | 4.0% | $405,800 | $367,800 | 393 | 296 | 2.3% | 6.8% |
| n Orlando, FL n | 966 | 610 | 6.3% | 3.7% | $330,933 | $303,000 | 456 | 290 | 3.5% | n 7.2% n |
| San Antonio, TX | n 919 n | 486 | 8.0% | 4.4% | $298,905 | $263,235 | 346 | 268 | -1.6% | 7.7% |
| n Austin, TX n | 913 | 321 | 8.1% | 2.9% | $475,300 | $422,300 | 142 | 108 | -7.7% | n 0.0% n |
| Denver, CO | n 847 n | 406 | 5.0% | 2.4% | $545,100 | $500,700 | 234 | 180 | -1.2% | 3.7% |
| n Portland, OR n | 664 | 319 | 4.6% | 2.3% | $515,900 | $481,500 | 190 | 118 | 0.9% | n 4.0% n |
| Sacramento, CA | n 646 n | 341 | 6.2% | 3.0% | $560,000 | $513,000 | 189 | 107 | 0.4% | 3.9% |
| n Nashville, TN n | 642 | 403 | 4.4% | 2.7% | $361,200 | $315,000 | 305 | 235 | 2.5% | n 8.5% n |
| Riverside, CA | n 615 n | 397 | 3.2% | 1.9% | $551,300 | $496,450 | 230 | 139 | 3.2% | 7.8% |
| n Tucson, AZ n | 609 | 273 | 11.0% | 4.0% | $316,300 | $286,900 | 208 | 161 | 0.0% | n 6.0% n |
| Los Angeles–Long Beach–Anaheim, CA | n 599 n | 383 | 2.0% | 1.2% | $787,789 | $771,500 | 233 | 234 | 1.4% | 4.6% |
| n Minneapolis–St. Paul, MN n | 591 | 263 | 2.7% | 1.4% | $337,037 | $300,200 | 152 | 120 | -1.0% | n 2.8% n |
| n Raleigh, NC n | 574 | 408 | 7.1% | 4.6% | $355,250 | $311,000 | 330 | 220 | 4.9% | 8.6% |
| n San Diego, CA n | 342 | 198 | 3.1% | 1.7% | $725,350 | $692,000 | 105 | 81 | -0.8% | n 4.9% n |
| Miami–Fort Lauderdale, FL | n 300 n | 119 | 0.8% | 0.3% | $378,700 | $344,800 | 107 | 52 | 4.3% | 6.9% |
| n Cincinnati, OH n | 242 | 97 | 2.4% | 1.1% | $268,250 | $245,400 | 63 | 44 | 0.9% | n 4.5% n |
| n Colorado Springs, CO n | n 238 n | 65 | 4.1% | 1.2% | $460,508 | $420,000 | 45 | 31 | -2.5% | 6.4% |
| n Lakeland, FL n | 237 | 117 | 7.9% | 2.5% | $278,628 | $239,100 | 101 | 67 | 6.4% | n 9.4% n |
| n North Port–Sarasota-Bradenton, FL n | n 199 n | 116 | 2.7% | 1.2% | $349,350 | $326,500 | 85 | 71 | 5.3% | 9.6% |
| n Daytona Beach, FL n | 196 | 130 | 3.6% | 2.2% | $264,400 | $249,950 | 83 | 66 | 5.3% | n 9.9% n |
| Durham, NC | n 180 n | 107 | 5.9% | 3.4% | $376,000 | $306,600 | 93 | 61 | 3.4% | n 11.5% n |
| Greensboro, NC | n 93 n | 46 | 13.9% | 2.0% | $220,000 | $229,000 | 42 | 25 | 1.9% | 8.0% |
| n Fort Collins, CO n | 83 | 32 | 8.1% | 1.1% | $499,699 | $453,650 | 28 | 23 | -3.7% | n 7.8% n |
| n Seattle, WA n | 64 | 95 | 0.3% | 0.5% | $685,000 | $610,000 | 30 | 36 | n N/A n | n 6.4% n |
| n Salt Lake City, UT n | 62 | 42 | 1.3% | 0.9% | N/A | N/A | 29 | 11 | N/A | N/A |
| n Greenville, SC n | 56 | 29 | 1.1% | 0.5% | N/A | N/A | 17 | 5 | N/A | n N/A n |
| n Birmingham, AL n | 52 | 41 | 0.9% | 0.7% | $228,100 | $177,000 | 28 | 26 | N/A | n N/A n |
| n Washington, D.C. n | 44 | 49 | 0.1% | 0.1% | $430,000 | $552,500 | 9 | 6 | N/A | n N/A n |
| n Ventura, CA n | 34 | 20 | 1.2% | 0.7% | N/A | N/A | 13 | 5 | N/A | n N/A n |
Tags
Sign up for Zillow Research updates
Subscribe to receive weekly emails for the latest Zillow research, weekly housing data, market insights and more.
Related Articles
Research in your inbox
Get the latest housing data and analysis from Zillow's economists — delivered when the numbers update.
