Teams are a big deal.

While individual agents have long dominated the industry, many real estate sales professionals now choose to partner together to share resources, referrals and more – and brokerages are capitalizing on this trend with user-friendly programs, notably Real’s Private Label initiative, the Side boutique. team platform and Redfin’s efforts to formalize teams within Redfin Next.

But where do these teams find customers, and how much do the best teams spend on their lead generation efforts? And in the ever-changing world of residential real estate, is there a “typical” team?

These are just some of the questions explored in a recent in-depth study of teams by consulting firm (and Real Estate News parent company) T3 Sixty and research partners RealScout and Tom Ferry International.

Most “teams” are small: only 2 agents

In theory, a team can be any size, with some even resembling small brokerages. But the T3 Sixty study reveals that the median size of a real estate team in 2024 was six people. However, the researchers noted that “the most common team size among respondents was two,” meaning that pairs of agents make up a large portion of the total number of teams.

Team roles, responsibilities and operations vary widely, the researchers noted. Some teams consist of spouses who work together “as a single ‘agent'” or are made up of “two or more individuals who 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, administration, transaction coordination, and buyer and seller agent roles.”

Larger teams spend more money on lead generation

Large teams typically invest more in lead generation and referrals than smaller teams, which is perhaps not surprising since they have more resources. But how much do they spend exactly?

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 or more agents) are willing to go much further. Nearly 20% of large teams reported spending between $2,500 and $4,999 each month on lead generation, and an equal share invested between $5,000 and $9,999 per month.

“Most smaller teams are more likely to be heavily dependent on single sources and are therefore often sensitive to price and program changes,” noted T3 Sixty researchers.

Higher listing 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 SEO fees. According to the report, these teams typically pay benchmark rates between 30 and 34 percent, while smaller teams pay between 25 and 29 percent.

“A key explanation could be that larger teams are simply willing to accept lower margins, if it allows them to complete more deals,” the researchers wrote.

“Higher turnover is likely directly correlated to compensation, and with access to more working capital, this could be a strategy that many high-profile team leaders pursue.”

Agents of big teams earn more

Joining a large team rather than a small one appears to give agents a slight advantage in overall revenue.

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 large teams earned that much. At the next income level, the difference was minimal, with about 19% of agents on small teams and about 17% of agents on large teams earning between $100,000 and $124,999.

The gap, however, was much higher when moving between $150,000 and $174,999, with more than twice the proportion of agents from major teams reporting that income level.

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

“Assuming that higher compensation correlates with higher quality talent and longer retention, larger teams may find that this return on investment is well worth the higher expense,” the researchers concluded.