Bigger teams spend more — but their agents make more 

Teams are a big deal. 

While solo agents have long dominated the industry, many real estate sales professionals are now choosing to team up to share resources, referrals and more — and brokerages are capitalizing on this trend with team-friendly programs, including Real's Private Label initiative, Side's boutique-team platform, and Redfin's push to formalize teams within Redfin Next.

But where are these teams finding clients, and how much are top teams spending on their lead generation efforts? And in the ever-changing world of residential real estate, is there such a thing as a "typical" team? 

These are just a few of the questions explored in a recent deep dive into teams by RealScout with research partners T3 Sixty (Real Estate News' parent company) and Tom Ferry International.

Most 'teams' are small — just 2 agents

A team can be any size, in theory, with some even resembling small brokerages. But the T3 Sixty study found that the median size of a real estate team in 2024 was six people. However, researchers noted that the "most common team size among respondents was two," meaning that agent pairs account for a large chunk of the overall team count. 

Team roles, responsibilities and operations vary considerably, researchers noted. Some teams consist of spouses who work together "as one 'agent,'" or are made up of "two or more individuals that simply market under a team name, but have no real operational overlap." 

At the other end of the spectrum, there are teams that "operate more like a small business with well defined marketing, admin, transaction coordination, and buyer and seller agent roles."

Large teams spend more money on lead gen

Larger teams typically invest more in lead generation and referrals compared to smaller teams — perhaps not surprising since they have more resources. But exactly how much do they spend? 

The majority of small teams (between two and five agents) surveyed spend $1,000 or less per month on lead generation efforts, while larger teams (6 agents or more) are willing to go much higher. Nearly 20% of larger teams reported spending between $2,500 to $4,999 on lead gen each month, and an equal share invested between $5,000 and $9,999 per month. 

"Most small teams are more likely to be highly dependent on singular sources, and are thus often sensitive to price and program changes," T3 Sixty researchers noted. 

Higher referral fees may be a small price to pay for more transactions

Just as they can afford to spend more on leads, larger teams often have the operational capacity and budget to pay higher referral fees. According to the report, those teams typically pay referral rates between 30-34%, while small teams pay 25-29%.

"One key explanation may be that larger teams are simply willing to accept lower margins, if it means they can complete more transactions," researchers wrote.

"A bigger topline likely does directly correlate to compensation, and with access to more working capital, this may be a strategy that many larger team leaders pursue."

Agents on larger teams earn more

Joining a large team, versus a small one, appears to give agents a slight advantage in terms of their overall income. 

Just over a quarter of agents on small teams reported earning between $75,000 and $99,000 in total annual compensation, while nearly a third of agents on larger teams made that much. At the next income level, the difference was minimal, with around 19% of agents on small teams and roughly 17% of agents on large teams making between $100,000 and $124,999.

The gap was much higher, however, when moving up to the $150,000 to $174,999 range, with more than twice the share of agents on large teams reporting that income level. 

A likely reason for this disparity, according to the report, is that larger teams are willing "to spend more money to make more money" — including giving their agents a bigger piece of the pie. 

"Assuming higher compensation correlates to higher quality talent and longer retention, larger teams may find that this ROI is well worth the higher expense," researchers concluded.