Hostaway Review: They Do Not Publish a Price, and Here Is What They Ask Instead

I reviewed what Hostaway puts in front of a prospective customer before the customer moves beyond its pricing form. I did not use an estimated fee, an aggregator’s price, or a remembered feature list. The result is narrower than many software reviews, but it answers the practical question that matters first: what can a host verify before providing more information?

What is Hostaway?

Hostaway is a software product sold to people who manage short-term-rental listings. Its public pricing route is framed around portfolio size rather than around a displayed subscription amount. The first question asks how many listings the visitor manages, which indicates that the initial route is organised for property managers with portfolios rather than around a single public checkout price.

I read the material used for this review on 2026-09-12 through a United States connection. Hostaway does not change this pricing page by country in the material I reviewed. The important distinction is that the page does not display a price at all, so there is no United States price to compare with a price from another location.

A concrete example shows why the positioning matters. A visitor managing 1 listing does not fit Hostaway’s smallest displayed portfolio band, while a visitor managing 3 listings does. Hostaway labels its smallest band as 2–14 listings. That does not prove anything about product quality, available features, or eventual cost, but it does tell the visitor which public route the company presents first.

I would treat that portfolio question as an intake decision, not as a plan description. A range such as 2–14 could contain hosts with very different operations: one person handling 2 listings in the same building, for example, and a manager coordinating 14 listings across several neighbourhoods. The page places both in the same first band, but it does not publish enough information for me to say that they would receive the same terms.

This distinction is worth preserving because software prices can use very different units. A percentage of bookings behaves differently from a per-user charge, and both behave differently from an account-level subscription. Readers who want examples of those structures can compare the methodology in the percentage-fee review, the per-user software review, and the whole-account pricing review. Those links are useful for understanding pricing shapes; they are not evidence of Hostaway’s price.

For this Hostaway review, I therefore keep the definition restrained: it is software presented to people who manage listings, and its public pricing path begins by sorting visitors according to listing count. The page gives 3 portfolio bands, beginning at 2 listings, rather than a public amount that a visitor can place into a budget.

Does Hostaway publish a price?

No. Hostaway does not publish a price on the pricing page I reviewed. I found no verified subscription amount, setup charge, percentage, minimum commitment, or starting price that I can responsibly repeat. That absence is the central answer to “How much is Hostaway?” rather than a blank that should be filled with an estimate from somewhere else.

The Hostaway pricing page begins with the wording “Step 1 of 3” and asks, “How many listings do you manage?” It presents these 3 choices:

• 2–14 listings
• 15–49 listings
• 50+ listings

Those are portfolio bands, not prices and not named subscription plans. I cannot convert them into a monthly total, an annual total, or an effective per-listing amount. For example, Hostaway places a manager with 3 listings and a manager with 12 listings inside the same 2–14 band, but the page does not establish that their costs would be identical. Dividing an unpublished total by either count would only manufacture a number.

The position of a host with 1 listing is more specific. Hostaway displays the link text “Only have 1 listing? Click here for more info”. That route leads to a page stating, “While we are not currently available in your market or for your portfolio size, we are rapidly expanding to serve property managers like you. Join our waitlist…” In other words, the public one-listing route is a waitlist form rather than a self-serve purchase path.

That finding should not be stretched beyond what the page says. I did not inspect what happens after someone completes the 3-step form. I therefore will not claim that the next stage contains a proposal, a plan comparison, a representative, a sales call, or a particular quote format. The verified evidence stops at the first step and at the separate one-listing waitlist route.

The underlying page captures contained 22,618 and 23,797 characters of visible text, with no currency amount found after a 60-second virtual-time allowance for the page to finish loading. Those Hostaway page readings matter because a page that initially appears empty can sometimes populate after its scripts run. Here, the completed captures still supplied no price.

Suppose a manager wants to budget for 10 listings. The public form tells that manager to select the 2–14 band, but it does not support an equation such as “published rate × 10.” There is no published rate to place on the left side of that multiplication. The only defensible budget entry before proceeding is therefore “not published”, not zero and not an estimated market average.

The same applies at larger counts. A manager with 20 listings selects 15–49, and one with 50 listings selects 50+. Those selections may help Hostaway route the enquiry, but they do not tell the reader whether the billing basis is per listing, per account, percentage-based, graduated, or built around a minimum commitment.

I recommend keeping portfolio count and billing basis as separate fields in any software comparison. Write down the actual count, such as 8 listings, then write “billing basis not published” in the next field. Do not let the fact that 8 sits inside the 2–14 band turn into an invented assumption about what the eventual bill covers.

This is also why I have not included a cost table. A row for 1, 3, and 10 listings would contain the same phrase three times: no published price. A paragraph communicates that limitation more directly and avoids giving empty cells the appearance of comparative data.

For examples of why billing units must be identified before arithmetic begins, see the room-based software review and the stepped-cost review. Neither supplies a missing Hostaway figure. They simply demonstrate why copying a number without its billing basis can produce the wrong total.

What do you actually get on each Hostaway plan?

I have not verified a plan-by-plan capability list for Hostaway, and its public pricing page does not provide a plan comparison I can report here. A manager with 3 listings can identify the 2–14 portfolio band, but that does not establish a plan name, included feature, usage limit, or upgrade boundary.

I also cannot infer that a visitor managing 15 listings receives something different from a visitor managing 14 merely because those counts fall into different form choices. The honest limit is that I read the first step of a 3-step form, not the material that may appear after submission.

Before treating any capability as included, I would ask for the exact plan name and have each required function attached to that name in writing. Until that information is available, a blank plan comparison is more accurate than a detailed table built from assumptions.

What does Hostaway not do?

I established only 2 limitations worth reporting from the reviewed material. First, Hostaway does not publish a price on the public pricing route. Second, it does not offer a self-serve route there to a host with 1 listing; the one-listing link leads to the waitlist page described above.

I did not establish that Hostaway lacks any operational software capability. Silence on a pricing page is not evidence that a feature is missing, and the absence of a public plan table does not justify filling in a list of supposed weaknesses. For example, knowing that 3 listings fit the 2–14 intake band tells me nothing about messaging, calendars, payments, reporting, tasks, or any other function.

That boundary is important in a review. “Not shown on the page I read” and “not supported by the product” are different claims. I can support the first for plan details; I cannot support the second for operational capabilities.

Who is Hostaway right for?

The public route gives one firm count-based distinction. A manager with 2 or more listings can choose one of Hostaway’s portfolio bands, while a host with 1 listing is directed to a waitlist page. That makes portfolio count a useful first filter, although it does not by itself establish whether the product is suitable or affordable.

Consider Niamh, who manages 1 rental unit in Galway and advertises it on 1 booking platform. Her platform mix and property count stay simple: 1 unit × 1 platform = 1 active listing for this example. When Niamh opens Hostaway’s public pricing route, her count is 1 below the lower edge of the smallest displayed band, because that band starts at 2 listings.

Niamh can follow the link intended for someone with 1 listing, but the destination tells her that Hostaway is not currently available for her market or portfolio size and invites her to join a waitlist. If her requirement is a self-serve purchase decision today, the public route does not provide one. It supplies neither a price she can accept nor a checkout path for her count.

Now change only the count hypothetically while leaving the decision method intact. At 2 listings, a visitor reaches the smallest form choice; at 14, the visitor remains in that choice; at 15, the visitor moves to the next band. Those thresholds describe how the form is organised. They do not prove that Hostaway becomes cheaper at 15, more suitable at 50, or better equipped for a particular operation.

I therefore cannot name the count at which Hostaway “stops being the cheap answer,” because Hostaway has not published a price from which cheapness could be calculated. I also cannot name the count at which it becomes the obvious choice, because the verified record does not contain the capability evidence needed for that conclusion. Giving both thresholds would require invented data, so I give neither.

The useful recommendation is about purchasing shape instead. Hostaway’s public route is more relevant to a manager willing to begin with a portfolio-count form than to a one-listing host seeking immediate self-service. A person who requires a visible cost before sharing further information will not find that cost on the page reviewed, whether the portfolio contains 2, 20, or 50 listings.

Portfolio complexity may still matter more than raw count in the eventual decision. Two listings with different owners, access procedures, teams, and reporting requirements can create a different workload from 10 listings in one building. Hostaway’s first-step bands do not expose those distinctions, so I would write down operational requirements separately before entering the form.

A practical requirements sheet can contain four plain columns without assuming anything about the vendor: current listing count, required jobs, acceptable billing basis, and functions that must be demonstrated. Niamh’s first column would contain 1. Her public-route result would be “waitlist,” while her required jobs would remain a separate list rather than capabilities attributed to Hostaway.

Hosts still defining their operating model can use the remote-management overview, the task-management comparison, and the host-app selection framework to organise their questions. These resources should help identify the job that needs doing before a vendor form is treated as an answer.

If the main uncertainty is whether a full property management system is necessary, the property-management-system decision guide separates that category from narrower automation tools. That distinction matters because a host should compare products against the same required job, not assume that every piece of rental software covers the same scope.

What do Hostaway users say in their reviews?

I do not collect user reviews of other companies, and I will not summarise ratings, advantages, complaints, review totals, or quotations that I did not gather. Readers looking for user submissions can consult Capterra’s Hostaway review page directly. What I can offer instead is the verifiable public purchasing path: Hostaway publishes no price, its form begins with 3 listing-count bands, and the route for 1 listing leads to a waitlist page.

What should you check before subscribing to Hostaway?

I would use the following 10-minute checklist before moving further. It is built around what Hostaway’s page leaves unresolved rather than around generic software-shopping advice.

1. Write down the real listing count. Do not choose a band using a future target unless that is what Hostaway asks you to provide. A manager with 12 active listings fits the 2–14 choice; a manager with 15 fits 15–49.
2. Record that the billing basis is not published. Do not assume that the eventual amount is per listing, per account, graduated, percentage-based, monthly, or annual. At 10 listings, there is still no public rate that can be multiplied by 10.
3. Ask whether any displayed amount is monthly or annual. Hostaway’s public pricing page supplies neither figure, so confirm the billing period before comparing a future amount with another product. A yearly total divided by 12 is not the same commitment as a cancellable monthly subscription, even when the arithmetic produces a monthly equivalent.
4. Calculate the total at the actual portfolio count. If a later document provides a rate, test it at the current count and at the next relevant Hostaway boundary. For a manager with 14 listings, that means checking both 14 and 15 rather than assuming the total changes proportionally.
5. Attach every required capability to a named plan or written scope. The public page does not provide a plan-by-plan comparison. If 4 capabilities are essential, list all 4 and obtain a clear inclusion answer for each instead of treating a general product description as plan confirmation.
6. Check the one-listing route before spending more time. A host with 1 listing is directed to Hostaway’s waitlist page. That is materially different from the route shown to a manager selecting the 2–14 band.
7. Separate software fit from price visibility. No published price means the public cost cannot be evaluated; it does not prove that the product lacks a feature. Keep those as 2 separate questions so uncertainty about one does not become a false claim about the other.

For another example of checking a pricing page without treating every visible number as the final bill, the count-sensitive pricing review shows the questions to ask, while the operations-software review provides another structure for documenting costs and scope. The single-property pricing review is also useful when thinking through how a unit basis affects a small portfolio. These are research frameworks, not sources for a Hostaway price.

BnBGenius Pro costs $10 per month. We do not provide channel management, calendar synchronisation, direct bookings, pricing tools, owner accounting, or the full job of a PMS. If you are weighing that narrower automation scope against Hostaway’s form-led route, use the direct comparison.