This article compares World Parity Monitor’s H1 2026 data with the same period of 2025 to answer three questions: why hotels are winning fewer price comparisons than a year ago, in which searches rates leak most, and which distributors undercut the direct channel and why. It closes with how to measure the same indicators for your own hotel.
Rate leakage is often described as an occasional incident: a wholesale rate that surfaces where it should not, or a discount that an intermediary applies without notice. The data tells a different story. Measured systematically, and compared year on year, leakage looks less like an exception and more like a constant feature of hotel distribution.
World Parity Monitor (WPM), the global parity observatory of 123COMPARE.ME, analyzes over 6 million monthly searches on Google Hotels. Each comparison is classified as Beat, when the direct price is lower than the OTA price; Meet, when both are within 0.5% of each other; or Lose, when an OTA undercuts the direct channel. The H1 2026 edition makes it possible to compare the first half of this year with the same period of 2025.
One year later: the same exposure, a smaller advantage
| H1 2025 | H1 2026 | |
| Beat (direct cheaper) | 45% | 40% |
| Meet (tied) | 22% | 26% |
| Lose (OTA cheaper) | 33% | 34% |
| Searches where at least one OTA undercuts | 75% | 73% |
Two conclusions stand out:
- The first is stability. OTAs undercut the direct channel in about one third of comparisons in both periods, and the lose rate barely moved within 2026: 33.4% in the first quarter and 34.2% in the second.
- The second is less visible. The share of comparisons in which the direct channel offers the better price fell by five points, while ties increased. Hotels are not losing more often, but they are winning less often. The data points to closer price matching by major OTAs: they rarely undercut the hotel, but they align with its public rate more often than a year ago. Each comparison that moves from a win to a tie leaves the direct channel without its price argument.
The last row explains how leakage works in practice. Against all OTA offers, the hotel loses one comparison in three. Against the lowest offer in each search, the direct channel was not the cheapest option in 73.4% of searches. It was the only channel with the lowest price in 19.9% and shared it in 6.7%. A hotel can be competitive against most distributors and still lose the search, because the traveler only needs to see one lower price.
Where rates leak
The H1 2026 data shows that disparities concentrate in specific situations.
- Device. The lose rate reached 36.2% on mobile and 28.7% on desktop, a gap similar to the one recorded a year earlier.
- Booking window. Same-day searches are the most exposed, with a 38.2% lose rate. The direct channel is strongest six to nine months before arrival, where it beats OTAs in 52.3% of comparisons. The same window was also the strongest in 2025.
- Length of stay. One-night stays show a 38.2% lose rate, compared with 31.3% for seven nights.
- Traveler profile. Families record the lowest lose rate, 23.6%, against 34.6% for solo travelers.
- Category. Three-star hotels lose in 35.7% of comparisons and five-star hotels in 31.0%.
- Region. LATAM (38.8%) and North America (36.3%) show the highest lose rates. Europe (32.8%) and APAC (31.3%) show the lowest.
- Destination. Las Vegas (56.0%), Buenos Aires (55.9%) and Ho Chi Minh City (51.1%) lead the ranking, the same three destinations that headed it in 2025.
The pattern is consistent across both editions: the closer the arrival date, the shorter the stay and the smaller the screen, the more exposed the direct price.
Who undercuts
The distribution landscape confirms a finding from the previous edition: the largest OTAs are not the ones that undercut most often. In H1 2026, Booking.com recorded a lose rate of 22.6%, Hotels.com 24.6% and Expedia 24.9%. At the other end, Super (71.4%), Trivago (68.9%), Billabook (65.6%) and Etrip (59.6%) offered a lower price than the hotel in most of the searches in which they appeared.
The distribution landscape confirms a finding from the previous edition: the largest OTAs are not the ones that undercut most often. In H1 2026, Booking.com recorded a lose rate of 22.6%, Hotels.com 24.6% and Expedia 24.9%. At the other end, Super (71.4%), Trivago (68.9%), Billabook (65.6%) and Etrip (59.6%) offered a lower price than the hotel in most of the searches in which they appeared. The difference lies in how each group competes. Major OTAs work with hotels under direct agreements and compete through visibility and brand. Secondary OTAs and metasearch-driven offers have neither, so a lower price is their main way to win the click, and their rates often come from wholesalers or third parties instead of from the hotel.
Much of the leakage therefore comes from intermediaries with which the hotel may have no direct commercial relationship, and whose rates are difficult to trace without continuous monitoring.
From benchmark to hotel
Global figures describe the market. Price Integrity is managed hotel by hotel, and that requires answering three questions for each property:
- Which distributors are offering prices below the direct channel?
- How often does it happen?
- In which booking windows, devices and segments does it concentrate?
WPM Hotel Price Check answers them for an individual hotel. It is a free report from World Parity Monitor that shows which distributors undercut the property’s direct price and how frequently, so that revenue and distribution teams can compare their own situation with the global benchmark and decide where to act first.
After two consecutive editions, the data points in the same direction: rate leakage is stable, measurable and concentrated in identifiable patterns. That makes it manageable, provided the hotel can see it.
Get your WPM Hotel Price Check
Frequently asked questions
How does World Parity Monitor measure Price Integrity?
World Parity Monitor analyzes over 6 million monthly searches on Google Hotels and classifies each comparison as Beat, when the direct price is lower than the OTA price; Meet, when both are within 0.5% of each other; or Lose, when an OTA undercuts the direct channel.
How often do OTAs undercut hotel direct rates?
In H1 2026, OTAs offered a lower price than the direct channel in 33.8% of comparisons, compared with 33% in H1 2025. Measured against the lowest offer in each search, at least one OTA undercut the hotel in 73.4% of searches.
What changed between H1 2025 and H1 2026?
The lose rate remained stable, but the direct channel’s advantage narrowed. The share of comparisons in which the hotel offers the better price fell from 45% to 40.0%, while ties rose from 22% to 26.2%. The data points to closer price matching by major OTAs.
Where is rate leakage most frequent?
Disparities concentrate in mobile searches (36.2% lose rate, against 28.7% on desktop), same-day bookings (38.2%) and one-night stays (38.2%). By region, LATAM (38.8%) and North America (36.3%) show the highest lose rates.
Which distributors undercut hotels most often?
The largest OTAs are not the ones that undercut most often. In H1 2026, Booking.com recorded a lose rate of 22.6%, Hotels.com 24.6% and Expedia 24.9%. Secondary OTAs and metasearch-driven offers concentrate most of the disparity, and their rates often come from wholesalers or third parties instead of from the hotel.
How can a hotel measure its own Price Integrity?
WPM Hotel Price Check is a free report from World Parity Monitor that shows which distributors undercut a hotel’s direct price and how frequently, so that revenue and distribution teams can compare their own situation with the global benchmark.
