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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
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<\/strong>, when the direct price is lower than the OTA price; Meet<\/strong>, when both are within 0.5% of each other; or Lose<\/strong>, when an OTA undercuts the direct channel. The H1 2026 edition<\/a> makes it possible to compare the first half of this year with the same period of 2025<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n One year later: the same exposure, a smaller advantage<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Two conclusions stand out:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Where rates leak<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The H1 2026 data shows that disparities concentrate in specific situations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Who undercuts<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n From benchmark to hotel<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Global figures describe the market. Price Integrity is managed hotel by hotel, and that requires answering three questions for each property:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<\/td> H1 2025<\/strong><\/td> H1 2026<\/strong><\/td><\/tr> Beat (direct cheaper)<\/strong><\/td> 45%<\/td> 40%<\/td><\/tr> Meet (tied)<\/strong><\/td> 22%<\/td> 26%<\/td><\/tr> Lose (OTA cheaper)<\/strong><\/td> 33%<\/td> 34%<\/td><\/tr> Searches where at least one OTA undercuts<\/strong><\/td> 75%<\/td> 73%<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n \n
\n
\n