Holiday Rental Management Fees: What Owners Actually Pay

One management company quotes 18%. Another quotes 23%. The first appears cheaper — but it may not be.

Holiday-rental management fees are calculated in different ways. Some apply to gross booking revenue, others to the amount left after platform commission. VAT may be included or added, while cleaning and maintenance can sit inside the service description but outside the price.

We reviewed public tariffs from property-management companies operating in Portugal and Spain to understand what owners actually pay. The result is a more useful way to compare proposals: not by headline percentage, but by the final cost for every EUR 1,000 in booking revenue.

Public management fees range from 18% to 35%

Public tariffs for operational holiday-rental management in our sample run from 18% to 35%.

That range is real, but the extremes do not describe equivalent services. Some operators charge on gross booking revenue, others calculate their commission after the booking platform has deducted its fee, and several do not publish a precise calculation base.

The more comparable full-service offers in the sample sit around 18% to 27% before VAT. This is not a market average: it is the range found in public tariffs from operators that disclose enough information to make a useful comparison.

GuestReadyFrom 20%Short-term rental revenueOnboarding and additional services may be charged separately Residence & Confidence15% Base / 35% GlobalBooking value after OTA commissionVAT included; Global adds local operations, cleaning and laundry Clareza Selvagem18% standardAccommodation revenue after OTA commissionVAT added; excludes cleaning, tourist tax and deposits BeGuestUp to 25%Not clearly defined23% VAT added Havenly Living18%–27%Net rental revenueVAT added; price depends on property and service level Holidays Malaga18%Rental incomeNo fixed fee or lock-in; cleaning is paid by the guest Pass the KeysFrom 18%Booking value after OTA commissionVAT, cleaning, linen, consumables and onboarding are additional Homerti16.5%Price charged to the guestVAT added; the fee is transferred to the guest Hosticasa12%–20%Not clearly definedDifferent commercialisation and operational packages

A low percentage can therefore describe a lighter service, a narrower fee base or a cost transferred elsewhere. A higher percentage may include substantially more work, or it may simply be more expensive. The percentage alone cannot answer that question.

The calculation base changes the real invoice

The fee base can change the invoice as much as the headline percentage.

Consider an illustrative booking with EUR 1,000 in accommodation revenue, EUR 100 charged for cleaning and EUR 150 deducted by the booking platform. These are demonstration assumptions, not estimates of a typical booking.

23% of accommodation revenueEUR 230.00 23% plus mainland Portuguese VAT on accommodation revenueEUR 282.90 23% plus Portuguese VAT on accommodation and cleaningEUR 311.19 20% plus Spanish VAT on EUR 850 after OTA commissionEUR 205.70

Portugal's standard mainland VAT rate is 23%, according to gov.pt. Spain's general VAT rate is 21%, according to the Agencia Tributaria.

The example shows why “20% versus 23%” is not a complete comparison. Depending on the formula, the lower headline percentage can apply to a wider base, while the higher one can exclude cleaning, tourist tax, deposits or platform charges.

Every proposal should define its calculation base in a sentence that can be applied to an actual booking statement.

Included management is not always an included cost

A service can be included operationally without being included economically.

A management company may advertise that cleaning, laundry or maintenance are included because it selects the supplier, schedules the work and checks the result. The cleaner's invoice may still be charged to the guest or passed through to the owner.

The same distinction applies to:

• Professional photography and listing creation
• Linen hire and laundry
• Guest consumables
• Maintenance visits and contractor coordination
• Emergency call-outs
• Licence or compliance support
• Dynamic-pricing software
• Monthly minimums and onboarding fees

Neither model is inherently wrong. Passing third-party costs through can be transparent and prevent the manager from hiding margins inside a larger commission. Problems arise when a proposal uses the word “included” without explaining who ultimately pays.

Owners should also ask whether the manager adds a margin to external invoices. A EUR 100 contractor invoice passed through at cost is different from the same invoice with a coordination percentage added.

Five questions make proposals comparable

Five questions make most management proposals directly comparable.

1. What exact revenue does the percentage apply to? Confirm whether the base includes accommodation, cleaning, tourist tax, deposits, discounts and the booking platform's commission.
2. Is VAT included or added? Ask for the fee both before and after VAT. This prevents a nominal 23% fee from being mentally compared with a VAT-inclusive offer.
3. Which services are paid by the manager? Separate work performed by the management team from supplier costs ultimately paid by the guest or owner.
4. What other charges or commitments apply? Check onboarding, photography, consumables, maintenance coordination, travel, monthly minimums, contract length and termination costs.
5. What happens when the contract ends? Confirm who controls the listings, reviews, future reservations, photographs, pricing history and guest data.

The simplest comparison method is to give every prospective manager the same completed booking example. Ask each one to calculate the management invoice, every additional cost and the amount that would remain for the owner.

That calculation is more informative than asking only whether the commission is 18%, 20% or 23%.

Net owner proceeds are the real comparison

Net owner proceeds are more useful than either the management percentage or the management invoice on its own.

The fee is only one line between the amount paid by the guest and the amount retained by the owner. Platform commission, cleaning, laundry, consumables, utilities, maintenance, refunds, payment charges and taxes can all affect the final result. A proposal that isolates the management fee but leaves the remaining lines undefined is still incomplete.

Revenue forecasts need the same discipline. One manager may project higher income than another, but the difference may come from more optimistic assumptions about occupancy or nightly rates rather than a superior operating model. Comparing each proposal with its own forecast mixes price and expectation in the same calculation.

A cleaner method uses three scenarios with the same assumptions for every company:

• Historical: apply each fee structure to the property's latest twelve months of actual bookings and costs, where reliable records exist.
• Neutral: use one shared forecast for occupancy, average rate, booking-channel mix and cleaning frequency.
• Downside: reduce revenue and add a realistic maintenance event to see whether minimum fees or fixed charges become disproportionate.

For each scenario, calculate guest revenue, platform deductions, management fees including VAT, third-party costs and the final amount retained by the owner. Keep taxes on the owner's income outside the manager comparison unless a proposal explicitly includes tax services.

Quality still matters beyond the spreadsheet. Response times, inspection standards, maintenance prevention, pricing discipline and the handling of complaints can affect revenue and asset condition. Those claims should be tested through reporting examples, owner references and clear service levels rather than accepted as a reason for an undefined premium.

The purpose of normalising the numbers is not to choose the lowest invoice automatically. It is to make the trade-off visible: what additional work, protection or expected performance does the owner receive for each additional euro of cost?

This also makes future reviews easier. Once the contract is running, the owner can compare the agreed scenario with actual statements and ask whether differences came from demand, operating decisions or charges that were not visible in the original proposal.

How LusiberiaStays structures its management fee

LusiberiaStays charges 23% of gross booking revenue, VAT included, with no fixed monthly fee.

Set-up and third-party costs are itemised and agreed separately. Cleaning, consumables and maintenance are passed through at cost, without markup.

This structure places the fee within the observed range for full-service management, although not at its lowest end. The case for it therefore rests on the operational scope: pricing and listing management, guest communication, local coordination, property inspections, reporting, preventive maintenance and cross-border experience in Portugal and Spain.

A variable fee also means that the management charge follows booking revenue rather than continuing as a fixed monthly charge during empty periods.

The percentage still needs the same scrutiny we recommend for every operator. Gross booking revenue must be defined precisely, and the exclusions must be listed before the owner signs.

The best quote survives a EUR 1,000 test

The best management quote is the one whose arithmetic survives a EUR 1,000 test.

A clear proposal allows the owner to reproduce the invoice without interpretation. It explains the calculation base, VAT, third-party costs and contractual commitments, and distinguishes between managing a service and paying for it.

Price matters, but the cheapest percentage is not automatically the lowest cost. Nor does the highest percentage prove better management.

The useful question is simpler: for every EUR 1,000 paid by the guest, what work is performed, what additional costs remain and how much is left for the owner?