Property & WEG Management
Reapit
Provenance unknown Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Reapit Ltd · reapit.com
Report an error on this page Is this your product? →
Link to this page
Add ?theme=dark to the image address for dark backgrounds.
The badge shows the category and the month of the latest evaluation, and EU-Made where
that is the product’s provenance. It never shows a score.
Reapit at a glance
- Vendor
- Reapit Ltd
- Headquarters
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Data hosting
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Free plan
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates Reapit 0.5/5, the mean of 6 judges. Reapit is presented on the captured pages as a UK sales-and-lettings platform for agencies — client accounts for rent runs and landlord payments, lettings and sales CRM, AI applicant matching, property management framed as tasks, due dates and tenancy renewals — with marketplaces in Australia and New Zealand. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 13 Oct 2026; evaluated by the panel 15 Oct 2026. all sources
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
Reapit is presented on the captured pages as a UK sales-and-lettings platform for agencies — client accounts for rent runs and landlord payments, lettings and sales CRM, AI applicant matching, property management framed as tasks, due dates and tenancy renewals — with marketplaces in Australia and New Zealand. Judged against a German owners' community's statutory needs, the evidence thins out. Assembly and resolutions scores run 0 to 0: we found no public information on convening owners' meetings, voting, minutes or a resolution register. WEG accounting and owner self-service each span 0 to 1; the only financial handling shown is lettings cash flow, and the only self-service shown is renters booking viewings. The highest scores are maintenance and defects (2 to 3, per-property tasks in place of defect tracking) and documents and handover (2 to 4, its top end the WEG administrator's 4 for migration-in evidence: five phases, test migrations, 100% of nominated data migrated, over 700 go-lives). Sovereignty spans 0 to 1 with no sovereignty attributes on record. No prices appear; the sole commercial contact is a sales email address.
Speaks for it
- Migration into the platform is well evidenced: five phases, multiple test migrations, 100% of nominated data migrated, over 700 go-lives.
- Property management tasks with due dates and renewals can serve as a per-property task or ticket list (maintenance and defects scored 2 to 3).
- Scale on record: 15k+ branches, 78k+ agents, 1m+ properties under management, 25+ years supporting agencies.
- Resident-facing self-service exists for renters, with portal enquiries vetted and viewings booked into a diary.
- An Integrations Hub with ready-to-use apps, single sign-on and a DataWarehouse for business-intelligence analysis is listed.
Held against it
- Assembly and resolutions scored 0 to 0: we found no public information on convening an owners' meeting, voting, minutes or a maintained resolution register.
- We found no public information on a Wirtschaftsplan, a Jahresabrechnung in the legally required form, distribution keys or separate Rücklage handling (WEG accounting 0 to 1).
- The self-service shown serves renters rather than owners; we found no public information on a per-owner login, statements or meeting papers (owner self-service 0 to 1).
- The migration evidence covers arriving, not leaving; we found no public information on retention periods, version history or a defined handover export a successor administrator could load.
- Sovereignty scored 0 to 1 with no sovereignty attributes on record: we found no public information on hosting location, a European contracting entity or subprocessors.
Best for
- You run a letting agency and need client accounts for rent runs and landlord payments alongside tenancy progression tracking.
- You want an evidenced migration onto a new platform: five phases, test migrations, 100% of nominated data migrated, over 700 go-lives.
- You operate in the UK or Australia and New Zealand, the markets the vendor addresses.
- You want a unified platform for sales, lettings and property management with AI applicant matching and automated communications and payments.
Avoid if
- You administer a German owners' community and need the statutory financial cycle; the only financial handling shown is client accounts for rent runs and landlord payments (WEG accounting 0 to 1).
- Your owners need their own login for statements, documents and meeting papers; the resident-facing feature shown is renters booking viewings into an agency diary.
- You need defect records with photos, contractor work orders and statutory inspection scheduling for lift, heating or fire safety; the renewals shown are tenancy renewals.
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Wirtschaftsplan, Jahresabrechnung & Rücklage | 0.5 of 5 |
| Eigentümerversammlung & Beschluss-Sammlung | 0 of 5 |
| Owner & tenant self-service | 0.5 of 5 |
| Maintenance, defects & contractors | 1.5 of 5 |
| Documents, retention & handover | 1 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 0 of 5 |
Wirtschaftsplan, Jahresabrechnung & Rücklage
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
The statutory financial cycle: business plan, annual settlement in the form the law and the BGH require, distribution keys, and the separate handling of reserve funds held in trust for the community.
0 — General bookkeeping only; no Wirtschaftsplan, no Jahresabrechnung, no distribution keys, reserves treated as ordinary balances.
3 — Templates that help a human produce the documents, with distribution keys entered by hand and no separation of the Rücklage.
5 — Wirtschaftsplan and Jahresabrechnung generated from the ledger with configurable distribution keys (MEA, units, consumption), and reserves booked separately.
8 — Settlement in the post-2021 BGH form with the Abrechnungsspitze shown separately, Vermögensbericht produced, heating-cost apportionment per HeizkostenV integrated, owner-change apportionment mid-year handled, and Hausgeld arrears tracked with dunning.
10 — The whole financial year is discharged inside the system: multi-community bookkeeping with strict per-WEG separation, trust accounting for reserves with its own reporting, settlement documents an accountant would sign, and the arithmetic auditable back to individual postings.
The WEG Administrator
The only money-side capability shown is client accounts for rent runs and landlord payments — agency cash flow, not a community's books. We found no public information on a Wirtschaftsplan, a Jahresabrechnung, distribution keys, or any separation of the Rücklage, so nothing here evidences the statutory financial cycle I run forty communities on. 1
The Advisory Board Member
The only financial capability shown is client accounts with rent runs and landlord payments for lettings agencies; I found no public information on a business plan, the annual settlement in the legally required form, distribution keys, or separate reserve-fund accounting. As the owner who checks the settlement before the assembly, nothing here lets me trace a number back to a posting, let alone to an invoice. 1
The Accountant
Everything financial in evidence is agency money: client accounts cover rent runs and landlord payments, and nothing else touches communal finances. We found no public information on a business plan, a settlement in the form the law requires, distribution keys, or reserve funds held as trust money for a community — so there is no separately shown settlement balance, no assets report and no heating-cost apportionment to assess. 1
The Portfolio Manager
The only money handling shown is rent runs and landlord payments in client accounts, which is lettings cash flow rather than a community financial cycle. I found no public information on a business plan, an annual settlement in the legally required form, distribution keys, or reserve funds held in trust for a community. 1
The Data Protection Officer
Client accounts for rent runs and landlord payments is the only financial handling shown, and we found no public information on a Wirtschaftsplan, a Jahresabrechnung, distribution keys, or any separate custody of the Rücklage. Nothing on the captured pages evidences the statutory financial cycle of a community. 1
The Skeptic
The captured pages describe client accounts for rent runs and landlord payments — lettings bookkeeping, not a community's statutory financial cycle. We found no public information on a Wirtschaftsplan, a Jahresabrechnung in the post-2021 form, distribution keys, or separate handling of the Rücklage. 1
Eigentümerversammlung & Beschluss-Sammlung
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Convening, running and recording the owners' meeting — including the resolution register the law requires the administrator to maintain, and the majority arithmetic that decides whether a resolution stands.
0 — No meeting support; invitations and minutes are written elsewhere and the Beschluss-Sammlung is a document somewhere.
3 — Invitation templates and a place to store minutes, but no agenda structure, no voting support and no maintained resolution register.
5 — Agenda-driven invitations respecting the notice period, attendance and proxy recording, voting with the common majority types, and a Beschluss-Sammlung kept as a numbered register.
8 — Quorum and majority computed per resolution type including MEA-weighted and qualified majorities, proxies and voting restrictions handled, minutes generated from the recorded votes, and the register maintained continuously with amendment and invalidation notes as § 24 (7) requires.
10 — The meeting is conducted in the system: hybrid or written circulation procedures supported with their own legal rules, contested resolutions flagged within the challenge period, the register complete and exportable as evidence, and every entry traceable to the meeting that produced it.
The WEG Administrator
We found no public information on convening an owners' meeting, voting, minutes, or a maintained Beschluss-Sammlung; the closest feature shown is renters booking property viewings into a diary. On this evidence the meeting and the resolution register would live entirely outside the product. 1
The Advisory Board Member
The captured pages describe sales and lettings CRM, bookings and mobile diaries for agents; I found no public information on convening an owners' meeting, recording attendance or votes, or a maintained resolution register. Without a numbered register there is nothing for me to check a contested resolution against when a neighbour challenges one. 1
The Accountant
We found no public information on convening or running an owners' meeting, on attendance, proxies, voting or majority arithmetic, or on maintaining a resolution register. The diary and booking features shown are for renters viewing properties, not assembly business. 1
The Portfolio Manager
I found no public information on convening or running an owners' meeting, on voting and majority arithmetic, or on the resolution register an administrator must keep. The captured pages describe agency workflows like applicant matching and tenancy progression, with nothing addressing owners' meetings. 1
The Data Protection Officer
Nothing on the captured pages mentions convening or minuting an owners' meeting, voting or majority arithmetic, or a maintained resolution register; the product is presented as sales and lettings software for agencies. We found no public information on any meeting support at all. 1
The Skeptic
We found no public information on convening or running an owners' meeting, agenda structure, voting support, or a maintained Beschluss-Sammlung; the diary mentioned in the mobile app is described for viewings on the road. Nothing on the pages addresses majority arithmetic or minutes. 1
Owner & tenant self-service
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
How an owner exercises their right to see the records, and how much routine correspondence the portal removes: statements, documents, meeting papers, defect reporting.
0 — No portal; every request is answered by email or post.
3 — A document download area with no per-owner scoping — everyone sees the same folder, or access is by emailed link.
5 — Per-owner login showing their own statements, documents and meeting papers, with a defect or request form that reaches the administrator.
8 — Owners and tenants scoped separately with correct visibility, meeting papers and voting available in the portal, defect reports with status visible to the reporter, and consumption or arrears shown per unit.
10 — The portal discharges the disclosure duty: every record an owner is entitled to see available on demand with an access log, tenant and owner views strictly separated, notifications for statutory deadlines, and enough self-service that routine correspondence largely disappears.
The WEG Administrator
The self-service shown is aimed at renters and applicants — portal enquiries vetted automatically, viewings booked into a diary, automated communications and payments. We found no public information on a per-owner login showing statements, documents, meeting papers, or a defect form, so an owner's inspection right would still be answered by email or post. 1
The Advisory Board Member
The only resident-facing self-service evidenced is that renters can have enquiries vetted and book viewings into the agency diary; I found no public information on a per-owner login with one's own statements, documents or meeting papers, nor a defect or request form. My neighbours would still be phoning and emailing the administrator for everything that matters. 1
The Accountant
The self-service in evidence serves renters — portal enquiries vetted and viewings booked into an agent's diary — and we found no public information on an owner login with statements, documents, meeting papers or a defect form. There is also a mobile app, but the pages address it to agents, not owners. 1
The Portfolio Manager
The only portal behaviour evidenced is renters booking viewings into an agent's diary and portal enquiries being vetted, which serves lettings applicants rather than owners. I found no public information on a per-owner login showing statements, documents, meeting papers, or a defect form reaching the administrator. 1
The Data Protection Officer
The only resident-facing feature shown is renters booking viewings into an agency diary, and we found no public information on a per-owner login, per-unit statements or arrears visibility, meeting papers, or a defect form with status shown to the reporter. Since this class of system would hold names, bank details and arrears for people who never chose the vendor, the absence of any evidenced scoping between owners and tenants is decisive for me. 1
The Skeptic
The portal evidence is renter-facing: vetting enquiries and letting renters book viewings into a diary. We found no public information on a per-owner login showing one's own statements, documents and meeting papers, or on a defect and request form reaching the administrator. 1
Maintenance, defects & contractors
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
The building side: defect intake and tracking, recurring maintenance obligations, contractor assignment, and the evidence trail when something goes wrong.
0 — Defects arrive by phone and live in a notebook; no maintenance schedule.
3 — A ticket or note list per property, contractors contacted outside the system, no recurring maintenance calendar.
5 — Defect records per unit or property with status and photos, contractor assignment with a work order, and a recurring maintenance schedule with reminders.
8 — Warranty and Gewährleistung periods tracked against the responsible trade, statutory inspections (lift, heating, fire safety, drinking-water) scheduled with proof of completion stored, quotes and invoices linked to the defect, and cost allocated to the correct account.
10 — A defensible operating record: every obligation, inspection and defect with its evidence and dates, contractor performance visible, budget consumption against the Wirtschaftsplan tracked live, and a history that answers the question of what the administrator knew and when.
The WEG Administrator
Property management is presented as tasks with due dates and renewals, which could serve as a ticket or note list per property. We found no public information on contractor assignment, statutory inspections such as lift, heating or fire safety, warranty periods, or a recurring maintenance calendar — the renewals shown are tenancy renewals. 1
The Advisory Board Member
Property management is evidenced as tasks with due dates and tenancy renewals, which is a task list for tenancies rather than care of the building; I found no public information on defect tracking with photos, contractor work orders, or scheduling of the statutory lift, heating, fire-safety and drinking-water inspections. When the lift certificate lapses, nothing on these pages would show what the administrator knew and when. 1
The Accountant
Property management comes with tasks, due dates and renewals, which reads as a note list per property and little more. We found no public information on defect records with photos, contractor assignment or work orders, a recurring maintenance calendar, or statutory inspections and warranty periods. 1
The Portfolio Manager
Property management is shown as tasks with due dates and tenancy renewals, which helps agent throughput but is not a building-side record. I found no public information on recurring maintenance calendars, statutory inspections with proof of completion stored, contractor assignment with work orders, or defects routed to the responsible trade. 1
The Data Protection Officer
Property management with tasks, due dates and renewals is the nearest thing shown, which reads as a task list per property; we found no public information on defect intake with photos, contractor assignment and work orders, or a recurring maintenance and statutory inspection calendar. I score it just above nothing rather than at the ticket-list level, because even defect intake is not evidenced. 1
The Skeptic
Property management with tasks, due dates and renewals amounts to a per-property task list, and it is framed around tenancy management. We found no public information on defect records with status and photos, contractor assignment with work orders, or a recurring maintenance schedule with reminders. 1
Documents, retention & handover
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
The archive and the exit. A Verwalter's appointment is finite by law, and the records belong to the community — so handover is a statutory event, not a support ticket.
0 — Documents live on a shared drive; no retention rules, and handover means copying folders.
3 — Central document storage per property with folders and upload, but no versioning, no retention policy and no defined handover export.
5 — Structured document management per property and unit with search, retention periods stated, and a documented export of a community's records.
8 — Full-text search across the archive, version history, documents linked to the resolutions and settlements that reference them, and a complete handover package (ledger, register, documents, master data) in open formats.
10 — Handover is a first-class feature rather than an obstacle: a complete, structured export a successor administrator can actually load, retention executed per statutory period, an access log over the archive, and no commercial friction placed in the way of a community leaving.
The WEG Administrator
Onboarding into the system is seriously evidenced — five phases, multiple test migrations, and a stated 100% of nominated data migrated across over 700 go-lives — though all of it is framed as migration in. We found no public information on retention periods, version history, or a defined handover export a successor administrator could actually load. 2
The Advisory Board Member
The migration page is genuinely substantive on data transfer — one hundred percent of nominated data, multiple test migrations, over seven hundred go-lives — but it describes moving an agency's records into the platform, and I found no public information on retention periods, version history, full-text search, or a structured handover export a successor administrator could load. The exit of a community of owners, which the law treats as an event in its own right, has no evidenced path at all. 2
The Accountant
The migration story is about arriving, not leaving: test migrations, one hundred per cent of nominated data migrated and over seven hundred go-lives are documented. We found no public information on structured document storage with retention periods, version history, or a defined export package a successor administrator could actually load. 2 1
The Portfolio Manager
The onboarding story is genuinely strong for speed — one hundred percent of nominated data migrated, test migrations before go-live, over seven hundred go-lives across a five-phase process. But that is data coming in; I found no public information on retention periods, versioned archives, or a defined export package a successor administrator could actually load. 2
The Data Protection Officer
The migration page promises 100% of nominated data migrated in, with test migrations and a five-phase implementation, which evidences inbound onboarding rather than a community's exit. We found no public information on structured archiving with search, retention periods actually executed, version history, an access log, or a defined handover export a successor administrator could load. 1 2
The Skeptic
The setup-and-migration pages evidence inbound migration — five phases, multiple test migrations, 100% of nominated data migrated, over 700 go-lives — which says nothing about a community leaving with its records. We found no public information on structured document storage per property and unit, retention periods, version history, or a defined handover export. 2
European sovereignty
panel opinion
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Where the community's financial and personal records live, who the contracting entity is, and which subprocessors touch them. Independently sourced by the sovereignty pipeline; scored here as this buyer weighs it.
0 — Non-EU vendor and contracting entity, hosting unstated or non-EU, subprocessors unnamed.
3 — EU hosting offered as an option while the contracting entity is non-EU, or the subprocessor list is absent.
5 — EU hosting as standard and an EU contracting entity, but parts of the chain — document OCR, AI features, support tooling — are non-EU without an explained safeguard.
8 — German or EU hosting on named infrastructure, EU contracting entity, complete subprocessor list published, any non-EU processing named with its legal basis.
10 — Sovereign end to end and evidenced: vendor, entity, hosting and every subprocessor European, certification published, and an export that keeps the community compliant for the full retention period after the appointment ends.
The WEG Administrator
We found no public information on hosting location, an EU contracting entity, or any subprocessor, and the vendor presents itself as a UK company with marketplaces in Australia and New Zealand. For a German community's financial and personal records I weigh that as an unevidenced, non-EU chain end to end. 1
The Advisory Board Member
No sovereignty attributes are on record: the pages show a UK and Australia/New Zealand market focus, and I found no public information on where hosting sits, under which entity contracts are signed, or which subprocessors touch the data. For a German community's financial and personal records, that is the floor, not a starting point. 1
The Accountant
The contracting entity named is a UK company outside the EU, the captured pages state no hosting location, and we found no public information on subprocessors or certification. As this buyer weighs it, a community's ledger and correspondence would sit in an unexplained chain with no European footing in evidence. 1
The Portfolio Manager
The captured pages market to UK agencies and to Australia and New Zealand, and the sovereignty record is empty — no hosting location, no contracting entity detail, no subprocessor list. For communities whose records must remain in Europe, I found no public information addressing any part of the chain. 1
The Data Protection Officer
Reapit Ltd is presented as a UK operator with Australian and New Zealand editions, no sovereignty attributes are on record, and we found no public information on hosting location, a European contracting entity, or a subprocessor list. With AI features such as AI property descriptions and applicant matching in the product and nothing published about where an AI-processed document is sent, the processing chain is unexplained end to end, which for personal data held in trust is unacceptable. 1
The Skeptic
Reapit presents itself as a UK agency platform — two-thirds of the UK's most profitable agencies — with additional markets in Australia and New Zealand. We found no public information on hosting location, an EU contracting entity, or a subprocessor list. 1
Pricing transparency
not rated — the vendor publishes no price
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether an administrator can compute the real annual cost for the units under management — including modules, per-community fees and setup — from public pages alone.
0 — No public prices at all; every quote is a sales conversation.
3 — A per-unit or per-community headline exists, but modules, minimum terms, setup or migration fees are unstated.
5 — Per-unit or per-community prices public with billing period stated, but at least one commonly needed piece (portal, accounting module, document storage) sits in an unpriced bundle.
8 — Every tier and module priced publicly with per-unit maths, minimum term, setup and migration costs and VAT treatment stated; only genuinely custom enterprise work lacks a number.
10 — Complete price computability: annual invoice derivable for a given number of units and communities including every module, with no per-seat surprises and any exit or export fee stated outright.
The WEG Administrator
The captured pages give no figures of any kind, and the only commercial contact offered is a sales email address. We found no public information on per-unit or per-community prices, billing terms, setup or migration costs, so a real annual cost is computable only through a sales conversation. 1 2
The Advisory Board Member
Not a single price appears on any page I was shown, and the only commercial contact given is a sales email address. An administrator cannot compute an annual cost for any number of units or communities from public information, because none exists. 1
The Accountant
We found no public prices at all — per-unit, per-community, module, setup or migration — and the only commercial contact shown is a sales email address. No annual cost is computable from these pages; every figure would have to come from a sales conversation. 1
The Portfolio Manager
No price figure of any kind appears on the captured pages, and the only commercial contact shown is a sales email address. As an operator who needs to compute annual cost per unit across thousands of homes before picking up the phone, every quote being a sales conversation makes this the bottom of the scale. 1
The Data Protection Officer
The captured pages name no price for any product or module and route enquiries to a sales address. An administrator cannot begin to compute the annual cost for the units under management from public information. 1
The Skeptic
No price figure appears in the captured material: no per-unit or per-community price, no module prices, no setup or migration costs, no billing period. The only commercial contact given is a sales email address, so every quote is a sales conversation. 1
Questions about Reapit
Is Reapit European?
Not determined: the vendor’s pages as captured do not say where Reapit is based.
Where does Reapit store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
Does Reapit have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Reapit?
As of 21 Oct 2026, the panel rates Condomana (3/5), Immoware24 (2.5/5) and etg24 (2.5/5) highest among the other 18 Property & WEG Management products evaluated. Ratings that look equal are rounded to half stars; the order uses the unrounded rating, then the name. The highest-rated European alternative is Condomana (EU-Made). Ratings are the AI panel’s opinion, formed from public evidence: how scores are made. The full list, with European products first: Reapit alternatives.
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 13 Oct 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- AI can misread a source. Extraction and judgement are automated; a citation guarantees traceability, not infallibility. If something here is wrong, say so — no account needed, every report is decided within 5 business days, and accepted corrections are published.
What we left out
A claim that does not survive our checks costs us the claim, not the page. This is what was taken off this one.
- We found no public information on pricing on the pages we read (reapit.com, reapit.com/solutions/setup-migration). If the vendor publishes it somewhere else, send us the page. Know more? Tell us
- We found no public information on compliance on the pages we read (reapit.com, reapit.com/solutions/setup-migration). If the vendor publishes it somewhere else, send us the page. Know more? Tell us
- 5 product facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 2 legal facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 hosting fact could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and was left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 support fact could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and was left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 6 of the readings below were written against an earlier fact sheet — a fact has been corrected, added or pulled since. Until the panel next runs on this product you are reading the older judgement. Know more? Tell us
Sources (2)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor page reapit.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Documents, retention & handover — found from sitemap www.reapit.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →