Comparing real estate agency fees in 2026 requires reading the published scales for what they really are: maximum ceilings, not fixed rates. The IAD scale, often cited as a reference among networks of agents, displays a decreasing grid ranging from 5% to 10% VAT included depending on the sale price, with a floor of 5% for amounts over 700,000 euros.
These figures only tell part of the story because the actual negotiation margin depends on factors that the grid alone does not reveal.
IAD Scale 2026: a ceiling, not a sale price
The decree of January 26, 2022, reiterated by a DGCCRF update in October 2025, requires every professional to display maximum VAT included prices in their window and on their materials. The IAD scale complies with this obligation: each price range corresponds to a maximum rate that the advisor cannot exceed, but can freely reduce.
For a property sold between 200,000 and 319,999 euros, the maximum displayed rate is 7% VAT included. Between 320,000 and 699,999 euros, it drops to 6%. Beyond 700,000 euros, the ceiling falls to 5%. Below 100,000 euros, the rates rise sharply (up to 25% for a property under 40,000 euros), reflecting a minimum fee amount rather than a percentage actually applied in the field.
A detail often overlooked in online comparisons: these rates concern traditional real estate sales. Sales in VEFA, VIR, commercial real estate, and businesses are not covered by this grid.
Traditional agencies, agents, and fixed fees: three distinct pricing logics
The French real estate market is increasingly structured around three pricing models that do not directly compare. To position the agency fees and IAD scale 2026 in this landscape, one must understand the logic of each.
Traditional agencies generally charge a percentage of the sale price, often within a range similar to that of IAD but sometimes higher for mid-value properties. Their cost structure (commercial premises, employees, physical window) impacts the level of commission.
Networks of agents like IAD, Safti, or iad operate without a physical agency. The advisor works from home, which reduces fixed costs. This saving theoretically translates into lower fees, but the displayed scale remains a maximum. The actual gap depends on negotiation on a case-by-case basis.
Fixed fee players (Homki, Imop, Hosman) offer a predetermined amount, independent of the property’s price. This model mechanically benefits sellers of expensive properties, as the cost in percentage decreases as the sale price increases.
For a modest property, the fixed fee can represent an effective rate comparable to that of a traditional agency.
Fees borne by the seller or the buyer: the impact on the calculation
The IAD scale specifies that the fees are borne by the seller, unless otherwise stated in the mandate. This mention is not anecdotal: it modifies the calculation base for notary fees for the buyer.
- When the fees are borne by the seller, the transfer duties (notary fees) are calculated on the net seller price, excluding commission. The buyer pays notary fees on a reduced amount.
- When the fees are borne by the buyer, the transfer duties apply only to the price excluding fees, provided that the mandate and the deed clearly state this. The fiscal result is identical, but the transparency of the distribution changes the perception of the displayed price.
- In both cases, the total amount paid remains the same. The difference lies in the presentation of the price in the advertisement and on the taxable base, which can create confusion when comparing several listings.
Checking who bears the fees before comparing two properties listed at the same price can avoid discrepancies of several thousand euros on the final bill.
Negotiating IAD fees: what the scale doesn’t say
Since the displayed scale constitutes a ceiling, the question becomes: what margin for negotiation actually exists? Field feedback varies on this point. Some IAD advisors systematically apply the maximum rate, while others accept a reduction, especially on properties whose sale price facilitates a quick transaction.
An attractive property that sells quickly reduces the advisor’s workload, which can justify a commission lower than the ceiling. Conversely, an atypical or overvalued property, requiring numerous visits and a long marketing period, leaves less room for maneuver for the professional.
Several factors can weigh in the discussion:
- The estimated marketing duration of the property, linked to its location and its price relative to the local market
- The type of mandate signed: an exclusive mandate, which guarantees the advisor to be the sole intermediary, sometimes leads to a pricing effort
- The advisor’s transaction volume in the sector, which influences their ability to accept a reduced commission while maintaining their overall income
No published grid formalizes these adjustments. Negotiation remains informal and depends on the relationship between the seller and their advisor.
Agency fees in rentals: a distinct framework often confused
The maximum fees attributable to the tenant were revalued on January 1, 2026. These fees cover the visit, the preparation of the file, the drafting of the lease, and the entry inventory, with a specific ceiling for the latter item.
This regulatory framework has nothing to do with sales fees. Comparing “agency fees” between a transaction and a rental is like comparing two different services, subject to different rules. Rental ceilings are set by decree and expressed per square meter, while sales fees remain free within the limits of the displayed scale.
This distinction deserves to be clearly stated, as the search for “agency fees” systematically mixes the two universes. A seller consulting the IAD scale will find no information on rentals, and vice versa.
The most useful comparison remains one that isolates each type of transaction, contrasts the displayed scale with the rates actually practiced, and integrates the fiscal impact of the seller-buyer distribution. Without these three parameters, any comparison between traditional agencies, agents, and fixed fees remains superficial.
