Mashvisor Review: One Price for the Whole Account, Not Per Property

What is Mashvisor?

Mashvisor is software for evaluating rental opportunities through rental comparisons, return-on-investment analysis, and market and neighbourhood data. It is sold to people who need to research a potential rental or assess an existing portfolio. A separate vacation-rental software line includes a channel manager and a bookable website.

I use the term “account” carefully in this review. The main advertised prices apply to the account, not separately to every property entered into it. If Hanne researches 3 properties in one town, that property count does not turn one account charge into three account charges. The same principle applies if she narrows the shortlist from 3 properties to 1 or expands it to 10.

I read the figures used on this page through a United States connection on 12 September 2026. The purpose of stating the date is practical: pricing pages change, annual billing labels can be missed, and rendered pages can show something different from their underlying HTML. This vendor does not reprice these figures by country, so I am not presenting them as country-specific alternatives.

The distinction between market research and day-to-day rental operations matters. Research software can help a buyer examine rental comparisons, market data, neighbourhood data, and projected returns. Those questions are different from the operational questions involved in handling bookings, turnovers, calendars, and guest communication.

If the research phase is your immediate concern, it helps to define the question before choosing software. Our resources on choosing a short-term-rental market, reading occupancy data by city, and comparing higher-occupancy markets show why a market-level question is not the same as a property-level decision.

A prospective operator may also be at a much earlier stage. Someone considering a rental model can start with an explanation of rental arbitrage, then examine the arithmetic behind rental profitability. Those are separate questions from whether the software in this review has the right pricing basis.

My working definition is therefore narrow: this is an account-priced research product, accompanied on the same pricing page by a second vacation-rental software line. I would not merge those two lines into one feature list. Doing so would make it appear that every capability belongs to every advertised plan, which the verified information does not establish.

What does Mashvisor cost?

The basis comes first: the main plans are priced per account per month, billed annually. They are not priced per property. The advertised monthly figures are annual-payment equivalents, not verified month-to-month rates.

The Mashvisor pricing page showed the following figures when read on 12 September 2026:

The vendor’s own footnote rounds Standard from $74.99 to “$75/month” and Professional from $99.99 to “$100/month.” I retain the card figures in the table because those are the more precise advertised monthly equivalents. The corresponding annual bills are the amounts that explain the rounding.

Property count does not multiply the account price. The following table applies the published account figures to 1, 3, and 10 properties:

The cells repeat because these are account prices. If someone incorrectly treated Lite as a per-property rate, the calculation for Hanne’s 3 properties would become 3 × $39.99, or $119.97 per month. That would overstate the verified monthly equivalent by $79.98. At 10 properties, the same mistake would produce $399.90 instead of $39.99, an overstatement of $359.91 per month.

The annual version makes the error even clearer. Lite is advertised as $479.88 yearly for the account. Multiplying that amount by Hanne’s 3 properties would produce $1,439.64, which is not the published account bill. The number of properties affects the effective allocation per property, but it does not change the account charge shown here.

For example, dividing Lite among Hanne’s 3 hypothetical properties gives an internal allocation of $13.33 per property per month. Dividing the same $39.99 account equivalent among 10 properties gives approximately $4.00 per property per month. Those allocations are arithmetic for comparison; they are not separate prices offered by the vendor.

The pricing page also lists exports at $35 per export, with $30 per export on the higher tier. These are usage charges rather than replacements for the account subscription. A buyer expecting to make 4 hypothetical exports would therefore model either $140 at $35 each or $120 at $30 each, depending on the applicable tier. That calculation is mine, while the per-export figures are the vendor’s.

A second product line appears on the same page. The vacation-rental software line shows Starter at $39.99 per month and Enterprise at 99.99. The Enterprise figure is printed without a currency symbol, so I will not add one that the page does not show.

I have not verified a month-to-month billing rate. Every card examined said it was billed annually. That means $39.99 should not be presented as a cancel-each-month Lite price: the corresponding published commitment is $479.88 yearly.

There is also a rendering trap. The page’s JavaScript rewrites the Lite figure after the page loads. A raw-HTML reading once exposed $49.99, while the rendered page seen by the reader showed $39.99. I use the rendered figure because quoting the pre-render value would reproduce a number that was not displayed to the reader.

Before deciding whether any subscription is affordable, I would separate the subscription from the economic assumption being tested. Our explanations of finding occupancy rates, interpreting an occupancy rate, and choosing an analytics tool by question help define the inputs before software costs are added.

What do you actually get on each Mashvisor plan?

The verified capabilities fall into 3 groups: rental comparisons and return-on-investment analysis, market and neighbourhood data, and the operational capabilities attached to the separate vacation-rental software line. I would not turn those groups into a detailed tier matrix because the verified record does not establish every boundary between Lite, Standard, and Professional.

The important line is between the main research offering and the second software line. Rental comparisons, return-on-investment analysis, market data, and neighbourhood data answer research questions. A channel manager and bookable website belong to the separately presented vacation-rental software line.

Suppose Hanne has 3 properties in one town, all advertised through one booking platform. If her immediate task is comparing the properties’ rental economics, the research capabilities are the relevant group. If her requirement is a channel manager or a bookable website, she should examine the second software line rather than assuming that paying $39.99 for Lite automatically includes those operational capabilities.

The same caution applies when moving from Standard to Professional. Standard is advertised at $74.99 per month equivalent and Professional at $99.99 per month equivalent, but price alone does not prove which specific feature creates the boundary. I would ask for the current plan matrix rather than infer that a desired capability must appear on the more expensive card.

A useful buying note can be written in 3 columns: required outcome, verified product line, and plan detail still needing confirmation. For Hanne, “compare rental returns” goes in the main account line. “Use a channel manager” and “operate a bookable website” go in the vacation-rental software line. Anything more detailed should come from the current checkout or a written answer from the vendor.

This prevents a common category error. A market-research subscription can be evaluated by whether its rental comparisons and market information answer the buyer’s research question. Operational software must be evaluated by the operational job it is meant to perform. Combining both evaluations into one undifferentiated feature checklist makes the advertised prices harder to interpret.

If you are still defining the operating model, the short-term-rental startup sequence explains the decisions that come before software selection. For the later presentation stage, the listing-improvement checklist addresses a different task from market research. Keeping those tasks separate makes it easier to identify which plan line is relevant.

I would therefore read the cards in this order: first choose between the research line and the vacation-rental software line; second select the plan inside that line; third add any export charges; and fourth convert the displayed monthly equivalent into the actual annual bill. For Lite, that final conversion is $39.99 × 12, which equals the published $479.88 yearly.

What does Mashvisor not do?

I verified 1 limitation worth reporting: the pricing page does not publish a month-to-month rate. Every plan card examined says that billing is annual. I have not inferred any additional absence from features that the pricing page does not mention.

This distinction matters because silence is not evidence that software lacks a capability. The verified record establishes that the main offering has rental comparisons, return-on-investment analysis, and market and neighbourhood data. It also establishes that the separate software line has a channel manager and bookable website. It does not support a longer list of things the product supposedly cannot do.

For a concrete billing example, Lite’s displayed $39.99 monthly equivalent corresponds to $479.88 billed yearly. A buyer looking specifically for month-to-month payment should not assume that $39.99 is available on that basis. The accurate statement is narrower: no month-to-month rate was published on the page read on 12 September 2026.

Who is Mashvisor right for?

The pricing shape suits a buyer who wants to pay once for an account rather than multiply the subscription by every property being examined. It also suits someone whose verified requirements match rental comparisons, return-on-investment analysis, market data, or neighbourhood data. A buyer seeking the channel manager and bookable website should evaluate the separate vacation-rental software line.

Consider Hanne, who is comparing 3 properties in one town and intends to advertise all 3 through one booking platform. On Lite, her published account cost is $39.99 per month equivalent and $479.88 yearly. Her property count does not make the bill $119.97 per month or $1,439.64 yearly.

For Hanne’s internal budgeting, the Lite equivalent divided across 3 properties is $13.33 per property per month. Standard works out to approximately $25.00 per property per month because $74.99 divided by 3 rounds to $25.00. Professional works out to approximately $33.33 per property per month because $99.99 divided by 3 rounds to $33.33.

If Hanne expands the same research account to 10 properties in that town, Lite remains $39.99 per month equivalent. Its internal allocation then becomes approximately $4.00 per property per month. Standard becomes approximately $7.50 per property per month, and Professional becomes approximately $10.00 per property per month. Again, these are calculated allocations, not prices printed by the vendor.

I cannot honestly name a universal property count at which this becomes the cheapest option or the obvious option. That would require a defined competing product, an equivalent feature set, and a verified competing price. Without all three, a threshold would be an invented verdict rather than a review.

The useful recommendation is therefore based on shape. Account pricing becomes more economical per researched property as the count rises because the numerator stays fixed while the property count grows. That does not prove that the underlying plan is suitable, because suitability still depends on whether the verified capabilities answer the buyer’s question.

At 1 property, Lite allocates the full $39.99 monthly equivalent to that property. At 3 properties, it allocates $13.33 to each. At 10 properties, it allocates about $4.00 to each. This declining effective allocation is the central economic feature of the account model.

Hanne should still resist buying a higher plan merely because she has 3 properties. Property count does not establish the plan boundary. She should move from Lite to Standard or Professional only when the documented difference between those plans supplies something she needs. The verified prices show the size of the step, but the information available here does not establish every feature that causes it.

The same discipline applies to market assumptions. A high projected occupancy rate can make almost any subscription look small relative to expected revenue. A lower realised rate can reverse that impression. Our resources on the operational levers behind occupancy, how search visibility works, and the owner operating model help keep a software purchase separate from an unsupported revenue forecast.

What do Mashvisor users say in their reviews?

I do not collect user reviews of other companies, and I will not summarise ratings that I did not gather. Readers looking for individual opinions can consult G2’s review page; I am not repeating a star rating, review count, quoted opinion, advantage, or complaint from it. What this page offers instead is verifiable pricing arithmetic: the account figure remains $39.99 for Lite, $74.99 for Standard, or $99.99 for Professional whether the account is used to examine 1, 3, or 10 properties, with annual bills of $479.88, $900, or $1,200 respectively.

What should you check before subscribing to Mashvisor?

I would spend 10 minutes checking the following items before entering payment details. The checklist is specific to the pricing and product structure reviewed above.

1. Confirm the billing basis. Verify that the selected price applies to the account rather than each property. For Hanne’s 3-property case, Lite should remain a $39.99 monthly equivalent rather than being multiplied to $119.97.
2. Convert the displayed figure into the annual bill. Lite is $479.88 yearly, Standard is $900 yearly, and Professional is $1,200 yearly. Do not read the monthly equivalent as a verified month-to-month option.
3. Enter the real property count into your own comparison sheet. Use the same account charge at 1, 3, and 10 properties. Divide it by the property count only when calculating an internal cost allocation.
4. Separate research from operations. Rental comparisons, return-on-investment analysis, and market and neighbourhood data belong to the verified research capability set. The channel manager and bookable website belong to the separate vacation-rental software line.
5. Ask which tier contains the exact capability you need. Do not infer a Lite, Standard, or Professional boundary from price alone. The verified information does not establish every feature difference among those 3 cards.
6. Include exports in the budget. If the applicable charge is $35 per export, 4 hypothetical exports add $140. At $30 per export on the higher tier, the same 4 exports add $120.
7. Check the second product line separately. Starter is displayed at $39.99 per month, while Enterprise is printed as 99.99 without a currency symbol. Do not silently assign a symbol or assume these figures share every term used by the main account cards.
8. Read the rendered card rather than copied raw data. The reader-facing Lite figure was $39.99, while a raw-HTML reading once exposed $49.99 before JavaScript rewrote it. The rendered figure is the one used throughout this review.

A simple worksheet can prevent category mistakes. Put the annual subscription in the first row, anticipated export charges in the second, the required capability in the third, and the relevant product line in the fourth. For Hanne, Lite plus 4 hypothetical exports at $35 would be $479.88 + $140, or $619.88 for the year. That total is arithmetic based on the published Lite and export figures, not a bundled price.

Before relying on any projected return, I would also test the operating assumptions independently. The walkthrough on city-level occupancy research explains the limits of broad location data, while the occupancy-rate framework helps translate a percentage into a practical decision. Those checks should happen before a software subscription is treated as proof that a property will perform.

A separate comparison point: BnBGenius Pro costs $10 per month. We do not provide channel management, calendar synchronization, direct bookings, pricing tools, or owner accounting, so that figure is not a substitute for the account product reviewed above. The BnBGenius pricing page sets out our own pricing separately.