Breaking Property News 22/1/26
Daily bite-sized proptech and property news in partnership with Proptech-X.
Why are most proptechs Unsaleable?
Structural issues rooted in how proptechs are conceived, built, and taken to market stops an exit or IPO
(Thought Leadership by Andrew Stanton CEO Proptech-PR)
The proptech sector has matured rapidly over the past decade. Capital has flowed in, incumbents have launched innovation arms, and almost every real estate workflow now has multiple digital challengers. Yet despite this apparent vibrancy, a hard truth persists, most proptech companies are fundamentally unsaleable.
This is not a commentary on ambition or intelligence. It is a structural issue rooted in how proptechs are conceived, built, and taken to market. Below I set out what I see as the core reasons why so many proptechs fail to reach acquisition-grade quality.
Many proptechs address operational irritations rather than existential business problems. Saving agents five minutes per listing, marginally improving reporting, or adding cosmetic automation rarely justifies strategic acquisition. Acquirers pay premiums for revenue protection, regulatory risk mitigation, market access, data moats, and platform consolidation. If a product can be switched off with limited downside, it has little strategic value, no matter how elegant the UX.
Distribution is the central failure point of proptech. Most startups rely on founder-led sales, sell to fragmented SMEs with high churn, lack embedded partnerships or exclusivity, and are not meaningfully integrated into core workflows. From an acquirer’s perspective, this creates unacceptable dependency risk. If growth is tied to one or two individuals, or constant outbound effort, the business is not scalable in a way that survives post-acquisition.
A common proptech profile looks like this: low ARPU SaaS subscriptions, monthly cancellable contracts, and a handful of large customers driving most revenue. This is toxic to valuation. Strategic buyers discount heavily where revenue can churn quickly, customers can renegotiate post-sale, and a single client departure materially impacts EBITDA. Recurring revenue alone is not enough. It must be durable, diversified, and defensible.
Many proptechs are feature-level solutions that should have been plugins, not companies. If a product can be replicated by an incumbent in 12 months, bundled into an existing platform, or supplanted by an API update, then the logical acquirer response is “build, not buy”. Acquisitions happen when buying is faster, cheaper, or strategically safer than building, I always feel that if it gets an acquirer 30-months ahead of the pack then a deal may be on. In my last nine years in this industry I feel most proptechs fail that test.
Pitch decks often prioritise vision over execution, TAM over margins, and future potential over present discipline. This produces companies optimised for raising the next round, not for being acquired. Buyers, however, care about clean cap tables, predictable cash flows, operational maturity, and clear governance and reporting. A proptech that has raised aggressively but lacks commercial fundamentals often becomes too complicated to buy and too small to justify the effort.
Real estate is conservative, relationship-driven, and risk-averse. Many proptechs underestimate lengthy sales cycles, procurement inertia, resistance to workflow change, and low tolerance for system failure. As a result, adoption remains shallow. Without deep usage and dependency, an acquirer sees limited switching costs—and therefore limited strategic value.
But the most damning issue is ‘no clearly defined acquirer universe’. Founders often cannot answer who would buy this business, why would they buy rather than build, and what strategic gap does this fill today. If there is no obvious buyer mapping from day one, the odds of a future sale are extremely low. Acquisitions are rarely opportunistic; they are usually planned, thematic, and strategic.
By contrast, saleable proptechs tend to share several characteristics. They are embedded deeply into mission-critical workflows, have clear strategic relevance to a defined buyer group, contracted, defensible, multi-year revenues, strong data assets or network effects, and products that would be costly or slow for incumbents to replicate. They are built with commercial realism, not just technological optimism.
The uncomfortable reality is that most proptechs are not failed businesses—they are non-acquirable ones. In a sector obsessed with disruption, the winners will be those who understand incumbents, procurement, incentives, and exit pathways just as well as they understand code.
Stanton says, ‘In proptech, innovation is necessary, but strategic inevitability is what gets you bought.’
Andrew Stanton Executive Editor – moving property and proptech forward. PropTech-X
You May Also Enjoy
Breaking Property News 13/2/26
Landlords unprepared for the Renters’ Rights Act
Why capital is staying in London despite a cooling housing market
The hidden risk of overvaluing your home when moving in today’s market
Rightmove launches next phase of AI-powered property search
