“I do think those risks are probably bigger than other people think,” Dimon said during an interview with Wilfred Frost, highlighting the wars in Ukraine and Middle East, along with rising tensions between US-China, leading to rising military spending at a time when government deficits are escalating.

When asked if markets are underpricing the chance of a major shock ahead, the JPMorgan CEO said it is difficult to know exactly what risks are already reflected in asset prices. “It is possible something is baked in, but what is not baked in is what actually happens,” he said during the interview.

He however acknowledged that the global economy has become more resilient because of a lower energy dependence than in previous decades. However, that does not completely wipe off the possibility of a sudden inflection point following the previous selloff seen this year, according to Dimon.

For the stock market, Dimon said he would consider an individual stock if it was “a great investment,” but he would not be a buyer of the broader market at current valuations. He also will not be a buyer of US Treasury bonds right now.

Dimon also raised worries about the massive AI spending by hyperscalers. “The amount of money being spent is huge. Will it in total pay off? Probably, just like the internet did,” he said during the interview. “Will it pay off the way you expect and the timetable you expect? Definitely not,” Dimon said.

Live Events

Also read | Warren Buffett admits to a rare mistake with these 2 big tech stock bets
This comes as oil prices jumped after the fragile ceasefire between Iran and the US broke down as the countries exchanged strikes. Yemen’s Iran-aligned Houthis on Monday said that they would impose a naval blockade on Saudi Arabia, opening a potential new front against the US in its war with Iran and raising the threat to global energy supplies and trade beyond the Gulf.Goldman Sachs in its recent note warned that Brent crude could surge to $120 per barrel if disruptions through the Strait of Hormuz persist, even as its base case assumes an eventual easing of tensions in the Middle East.

JPMorgan last week reported a stellar set of earnings, posting its highest profit in history by a US bank.

Also read | South Korea’s Kospi jumps 4% after 31% crash from June peak. What’s ahead?

(With inputs from agencies)

(Disclaimer: Recommendations, suggestions, views and opinions given by the experts are their own. These do not represent the views of The Economic Times)

A figure circulating in iGaming circles puts crypto casino and sportsbook Toshi.bet at a valuation of around $200 million — a striking number for a company founded only in 2023.

According to industry estimates, the platform’s rapid rise reflects a broader boom in crypto-based online gaming, where operators built around cryptocurrency payments and fast payouts are growing quickly. Here’s what’s behind the valuation and why the crypto-gaming sector is drawing attention.

What is Toshi.bet?

Toshi.bet is an online crypto casino and sportsbook that launched in 2023 and operates entirely in cryptocurrency, combining casino games with a sportsbook. Its core proposition is speed — users can register without traditional identity verification and withdraw funds quickly — and it operates under a valid gaming licence.

That low-friction model is central to why the platform has grown quickly enough to attract a nine-figure valuation estimate in just three years.

Why is Toshi.bet reportedly valued at $200 million?

According to industry estimates, Toshi.bet’s valuation of around $200 million is driven by three factors common to fast-growing crypto-gaming platforms: rapid user growth, high transaction volumes, and the margins available in a largely crypto-native business that avoids traditional banking overheads.

Because the platform settles deposits and withdrawals in cryptocurrency rather than through banks, it sidesteps card-processing fees and multi-day settlement times. For a business processing high volumes, those efficiencies compound. Combined with a growing user base drawn to fast, low-friction sign-up, the economics help explain why a three-year-old company is being estimated at this level.

How has the crypto casino sector grown so fast?

The crypto-gambling sector has expanded rapidly as cryptocurrency adoption has become mainstream. Platforms in this space share a common model: they let users play and bet using digital currencies, often with fewer barriers to entry than traditional operators.

The lower overheads and faster settlement give crypto-native operators structural advantages that translate into growth — and, for the fastest-growing names, valuations that rival far older companies.

Is the crypto-gaming boom sustainable?

The sector’s growth is real, but it operates in a shifting regulatory landscape. Different countries treat online gambling and cryptocurrency very differently, and operators’ long-term prospects depend heavily on how regulation evolves in their key markets. Analysts watching the space tend to weigh rapid growth against this regulatory uncertainty.

For now, the momentum is clear: crypto-native operators like Toshi.bet are growing fast enough to draw nine-figure valuation estimates within a few years of launching — a pace rarely seen in traditional gaming.

The bottom line

A reported $200 million valuation just three years after launch places Toshi.bet among the faster-growing names in a booming crypto-gaming sector. The combination of cryptocurrency payments, lighter onboarding, and fast withdrawals has helped crypto-native operators grow at a pace that’s reshaping the online gaming industry. Whether that momentum holds will depend, as ever, on how regulation develops across key markets.

This article covers business and industry developments. Online gambling involves financial risk and is age-restricted; readers should check the laws that apply where they live.

In a circular, Sebi asked depositories to issue operational guidelines covering the implementation of the ISIN-level freeze on promoter and promoter group holdings, including the format for listed companies to issue freezing instructions.

The framework will also lay down operational modalities for permitting promoters to tender shares in buybacks conducted through the tender offer route and for allowing the invocation or release of encumbrances created before the commencement of the buyback period.

In such cases, the freeze will continue to apply to the invoked or released shares or other specified securities.

“The depositories shall ensure that the operational framework and the necessary system enhancements are put in place before August 1, 2026,” Sebi said.

Live Events

The circular follows the regulator’s notification issued on July 1, 2026, which amended the Sebi (Buy-back of Securities) Regulations, 2018. Under the amended rules, promoter and promoter group holdings, including those of their associates, will remain frozen at the ISIN level from the date the board of directors or shareholders approve the buyback until the offer closes.
The amended regulations provide two exceptions — promoters can tender shares in buybacks undertaken through the tender offer route, and encumbrances created before the commencement of the buyback period may be invoked, while ensuring that the freeze continues to apply to the invoked or released shares.

Gains in recently battered semiconductor stocks provided huge support ‌for the main ⁠U.S. stock ⁠indexes and the Philadelphia SE Semiconductor Index rallied sharply in its second consecutive advance after ending Friday more than 20% below its late-June record high.

“Investors are really ​buying back in to the semis ahead of earnings because they have fear of missing out (FOMO), that these companies could report outsized earnings ​beats and increase their outlooks and they don’t own as much as they did before the most recent pullback,” said Lindsey Bell, chief investment strategist at 248 Ventures in Charlotte, North Carolina.

But Bell cautioned that when stocks rally sharply ahead of earnings, “it makes it ​more difficult for them to run in response to earnings.”

“The numbers are going ⁠to be ‌really good, but the stocks are also priced for perfection,” she said. The chip index dipped last ​week as investors grew ​concerned about high valuations and hefty investments on artificial intelligence. But even after that drop, it ⁠is still up nearly 75% year-to-date.

Live Events

According to preliminary data, the S&P 500 ​gained 64.04 points, or 0.86%, to end at 7,507.32 points, while the Nasdaq Composite gained 321.53 ​points, or 1.26%, to 25,829.61. The Dow Jones Industrial Average rose 384.46 points, or 0.74%, to 52,223.72.
Among the benchmark’s 11 major industry sectors, information technology led the gains during the session while consumer staples stocks lagged. Equity investors appeared to shrug off President Donald Trump’s unveiling of 50% tariffs on a wide range of imports from Canada on Monday. They also looked past geopolitics even as oil prices settled up 2% after hitting five-week highs. This was after two oil tankers carrying Saudi crude to Asia ‌reversed course in the Red Sea after Yemen’s Iran-aligned Houthis threatened to impose a blockade on commercial shipping there. Trump said the United States would respond if the Houthis followed through.”Investors see (the war) as transitory ​because we know ​two things – that $100 oil is a ⁠pressure point for Trump, and we also know that midterm elections are coming up,” Bell said.

Meanwhile, their focus this week will turn to results from Alphabet and chipmakers Intel and Texas Instruments. Among individual stocks, 3M shares rallied after the industrial giant lifted its ​full-year profit forecast. Hasbro stock climbed sharply after it raised annual revenue and profit forecasts, betting on demand for its digital gaming and “Magic: The Gathering” products. Danaher shares sank after the life sciences firm trimmed its core revenue growth outlook and reported weaker-than-expected revenue in its biotechnology business. MSCI shares tumbled after the index provider raised its full-year operating expense forecast despite better-than-expected quarterly revenue. And Genuine Parts shares dropped after the auto parts distributor lowered its full-year profit outlook.

On the back of a strong start to the financial year it is expecting revenues for the full year to come in more than 30% on 2025

One of Wales’ leading technology firms, IQE, is expecting revenue growth of more than 30% in its current financial year as it looks to build on strong half year trading.

In an upbeat trading statement the Cardiff headquartered Alternative Investment Market business, a leading global supplier of compound semiconductor wafer products and advanced material solutions, said the first half exceeded management expectations with strong demand across all core segments. This is expected to result in first half revenues of at least £64m.

Demand for IQE’s iondium phosphide (InP) solutions is continuing to accelerate due to their critical role in enabling optical photonics products for data centres and AI infrastructure. Revenue growth was also supported by ongoing strength in aerospace and defence segments, as well as robust demand for both 3D sensing and wireless products.

For the full year (2026 calendar year), IQE it is now anticipating revenue growth in excess of 30% year-on-year, resulting in an Ebitda in the “low teen” millions . The group remains bank-debt free with a cash position as at 30 June of £41.6m.

Chief executive Jutta Meier said: “I am very pleased that half trading exceeded our expectations. Our long-established leadership in InP and other key material systems means we are critically embedded in supply chains enabling industry trends that will continue to deliver further progress in H2. I remain extremely excited about the significant opportunities ahead for the transformed IQE, and look forward to sharing our continued progress.”

Following the trading statement broker Panmure Liberum increased its share target price from 50p to 54p, having recently upgraded its hold recommendation to a buy.

Last week IQE was boosted with a multi-year production order valued at $14 million from a strategic global technology customer. The order which is to be manufactured at IQE’s Newport foundry, supports applications serving AI and datacentre markets, where increasing data generation and hyperscale infrastructure requirements are driving demand for high-performance storage technologies.

In addition to the production order with the new undisclosed client, IQE says it continues to engage with the customer on future opportunities, including the development of next-generation technologies supporting multiple stages of the customer’s data lifecycle.

Mr Meier said: “We are pleased to have secured this production order with a strategic global technology leader, supporting the rapid growth of AI and datacentre markets from IQE’s volume manufacturing facility at Newport and expected to build over the coming years. This highlights the role IQE plays supporting high-performance infrastructure from the datacentre to the edge, enabled by our differentiated epitaxy portfolio, which also includes indium phosphide optical communications, silicon photonics and gallium arsenide vertical-cavity surface emitting laser-datacom applications.”

Earlier this year IQE was boosted with £81m funding package which included a £30m investment by US semiconducter manufacturer MACOM Technologies Solutions. MACOM is also supporting the company with a further £15m in convertible loan notes . The US business, which has become a minority shareholder, remains a long-term client of IQE.

Following the MACOM investment its executives Robert Dennehy and David O’ Carroll have joined the board of IQE as non-executives. Mr Dennehy has more than 30 years of experience at MACOM and since last November has been its senior vice president and chief operating officer. Mr O’ Carroll over has more than 10 years of experience with MACOM, with particular expertise in international operations, finance, and government relations across Europe and Asia. He has served as MACOM’s vice president since October 2023, managing facilities in France, Japan and Ireland and overseeing MACOM’s Asian operations.

Mark Cubitt, chairman of IQE, said: “I am delighted to welcome Robert and David to the board of IQE. I look forward to working with them and the rest of the Board as we capitalise on the opportunities ahead for the company.”

Southeast Asia is in the middle of one of the most consequential financial transformations in its history. Digital payments are proliferating, virtual banks are launching, cross-border QR networks are linking national systems that once operated in complete isolation, and a generation of mobile-first consumers is bypassing traditional banking infrastructure entirely. The numbers tell a compelling story: ASEAN’s fintech market reached USD 16.7 billion in 2025 and is projected to grow to USD 66.4 billion by 2033, at a compound annual growth rate of 18.8%.

Yet beneath the growth headlines lies a structural problem that has dogged the region’s financial integration agenda for decades and that no single bilateral deal or regulatory framework has yet resolved: fragmentation. Ten economies, ten regulatory regimes, ten currencies, and ten distinct national payment architectures — all attempting, with varying degrees of ambition and coordination, to build a seamless regional financial system. The question for investors, fintech operators, and policymakers is no longer whether ASEAN fintech will grow. It clearly will. The question is whether the region can grow together — or whether its own complexity will cap the potential of the ecosystem it is building.

The Scale of the Opportunity

The structural foundations driving ASEAN fintech growth are well understood: a large and young unbanked population, rapidly expanding middle class, high mobile penetration, and governments motivated to accelerate financial inclusion as a development priority.

Southeast Asia’s fintech transaction value reached USD 1.4 trillion in 2025, shaped by data-driven super apps and digital payments, and is projected to grow further. In ASEAN’s six largest economies — Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam — the share of global fintech investments increased from 2% in 2018 to 7% in 2022, amounting to approximately USD 4.3 billion. The trend has continued despite global funding volatility: in 2024, ASEAN-6 fintech funding fell by less than 1%, against a 28% decline in global fintech funding over the same period.

The resilience is notable. But so is the concentration: fintech funding remains highly concentrated, with Singapore-based firms accounting for up to 85% of regional funding in 2025. For markets such as Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, and the Philippines, these gaps in capital access present a structural constraint on scaling.

The Fragmentation Problem

ASEAN’s fintech ecosystem is expanding rapidly, but growth remains uneven due to fragmented regulation, infrastructure gaps, and highly concentrated funding that limits firms’ ability to scale and extend services to underserved populations.

The regulatory dimension is the most acute. Each ASEAN member state maintains its own licensing frameworks, data localisation requirements, anti-money-laundering and know-your-customer standards, and digital asset rules. A fintech firm licensed in Singapore cannot automatically offer services in Thailand, Indonesia, or Vietnam. It must navigate three separate regulatory environments — each with distinct timelines, compliance costs, and enforcement cultures. The primary challenges include currency conversion costs, regulatory fragmentation across different jurisdictions, slow settlement times, and limited interoperability between domestic payment networks.

The IMF has flagged this constraint directly. The current web of bilateral cross-border payment arrangements is not scalable for a globally interconnected economy. As more countries join, the number of necessary connections grows exponentially. Moving to a multilateral system will significantly enhance efficiency, interoperability, and reduction in complexity.

The stablecoin surge adds a further complication. In the ASEAN+3 region, where regulatory frameworks vary widely, the rise of stablecoin alternatives will contribute to a more fragmented cross-border payment system. The real challenge lies in resilience: building a cross-border payment ecosystem that is diverse, interoperable, and robust against shocks.

Progress on the Ground: QR Networks and Project Nexus

Despite the structural complexity, tangible progress is being made — and faster than many observers anticipated.

As of April 2026, ASEAN countries have officially entered the era of borderless payments. Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand have linked their respective national QR systems — QRIS, DuitNow, QR Ph, PayNow, and PromptPay — enabling seamless cross-border transactions across a 420-million-consumer payment zone.

The volume of activity already flowing through these corridors is significant. ASEAN cross-border QR payment transactions surged to 12.9 million in the first half of 2025 alone, setting the stage for further expansion as additional cross-country linkages are explored.

The architecture underpinning this expansion is Project Nexus. Launched by the BIS Innovation Hub with ASEAN central banks, Project Nexus replaces the unwieldy web of bilateral links with a hub-and-spoke model where each instant payment system connects once to a central gateway, gaining access to all others. With India, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand onboard, and Nexus Global Payments established in Singapore, the initiative is on track for rollout in 2026. By standardising message formats, compliance, and FX processes, Nexus promises near-instant payments across jurisdictions at minimal cost.

By using the Local Currency Transaction framework, countries like Indonesia, Thailand, and Malaysia are settling payments directly between their own currencies, reducing reliance on the US dollar as an intermediary and protecting local economies from global exchange rate volatility.

Thailand’s Position: A Fintech Leader With Structural Ambitions

For Thailand specifically, the fintech moment represents both a competitive opportunity and an unfinished policy agenda.

Thailand presents perhaps the clearest model of government-led digital financial transformation in the region. PromptPay, launched in 2017, now processes more than 75 million daily transactions. Thailand’s financial inclusion rate stands at 92% of adults — with women slightly ahead of men, a phenomenon attributed in part to cultural norms in which women manage household finances.

The next phase is virtual banking. The Bank of Thailand’s approval of three digital banking licence applicants — Krungthai Bank in partnership with AIS and PTT OR; SCBX with South Korea’s KakaoBank and China’s WeBank; and the CP Group with TrueMoney — represents a turning point in Thailand’s push for financial innovation and inclusion. These virtual banks, expected to launch in 2026, will challenge incumbents with cloud-native infrastructure and customer-centric propositions targeting underserved segments.

Thailand is one of the fastest-growing fintech markets in ASEAN, and a pioneer in the adoption of 5G technology to improve capacity for deep technology including blockchain, AI, big data, and cloud computing. Yet even in Thailand, most banks still face barriers in industrialising AI across the enterprise, with AI remaining limited to isolated use cases due to fragmented data architectures and unclear governance structures.

What the Region Can Learn

The external models are instructive. India’s Digital Public Infrastructure — comprising the Aadhaar identity system, the Unified Payments Interface, and Account Aggregators for secure data exchange — facilitates over 20 billion transactions per month in 2025, making it among the world’s largest payment networks, now adopted or licensed by countries including Singapore and Peru. Brazil’s Pix instant payment system processed 57 billion transactions in 2024. Both demonstrate what regulatory coherence and standardisation at the national level can unlock at scale.

A more united ASEAN policy approach, drawing on lessons from these emerging economies, could harness the region’s significant potential for fintech growth, promote meaningful and equitable financial inclusion, bolster competition, and fuel innovation. The architecture for that approach is taking shape — in Project Nexus, in the ASEAN Payment Connectivity initiative, and in the national digital banking frameworks now being activated across the region. The gap that remains is political will and regulatory harmonisation speed.

ASEAN fintech’s rise is not in question. The pipeline of investment, the demographic tailwinds, and the infrastructure already in place are too substantial for the trajectory to reverse. What remains genuinely uncertain is whether the region will realise its full potential as an integrated financial ecosystem — or continue to grow as a collection of nationally dominant platforms that are technically connected but structurally siloed.

For businesses and investors operating across ASEAN, that distinction is material. A company that can deploy one compliance framework, one payment integration, and one data architecture across the region has a fundamentally different cost structure and market opportunity than one that must rebuild its operating model in each jurisdiction. Closing that gap is not merely a regulatory ambition. It is the defining competitive task for ASEAN fintech in the years ahead — and Thailand, as one of the region’s most advanced and strategically positioned markets, has both the most to gain and an important role to play in making it happen.

Sources: East Asia Forum (March 2026); IMF Staff Country Reports (February 2026); GSMA Intelligence (April 2026); AMRO Asia; BIS Innovation Hub; Chambers and Partners Fintech 2026 Thailand; DataCube Research

Other People are Reading

The UK is one of Europe’s largest short-term rental markets, but performance varies widely between cities.

A property in London, Edinburgh, or Manchester does not face the same demand patterns, guest expectations, or regulatory pressure as one in a coastal or rural location. The same applies to management companies. Some offer national coverage, while others are strong in one city but thinner elsewhere.

For owners comparing providers for the first time, the difficult part is understanding coverage gaps, commission structures, and service exclusions before signing. This comparison looks at six UK Airbnb management companies across the criteria that affect real-world performance and net income.

What we compared

For each company, we assessed five areas: national coverage and the cities where they actively operate, published commission rates and fee structures, what is included in the standard service versus charged as an add-on, the technology available to property owners for tracking performance, and the quality of owner support for multi-property portfolios. Where information was not publicly available, we’ve noted it.

GuestReady — national coverage with full-service Airbnb management

GuestReady is one of the larger short-term rental operators active in the UK, with coverage across London, Edinburgh, Manchester, Liverpool, Brighton, and other cities. It also operates internationally across multiple countries, making it relevant for owners with properties in more than one market. For owners comparing Airbnb management in the UK, this matters because service consistency across cities can be as important as local performance.

The service includes professional photography, listing creation and optimisation across Airbnb, Booking.com, VRBO and other platforms, price optimisation, 24/7 guest communication, cleaning coordination, check-in and check-out management, an owner dashboard with real-time booking and financial visibility, and a dedicated account manager. GuestReady positions itself as a full-service operator rather than a listing-only provider.

The details that require direct enquiry are mainly commercial. Commission starts from 12% in some UK markets, but rates vary by city and property profile. An onboarding fee applies, and service inclusions may differ slightly between cities. Mid-term rental options are also available but handled separately from the core short-term service.

Best for: owners with properties across multiple UK cities who need a single operator with consistent standards and a proven track record in major markets.

Houst — flexible management plans

Houst is a well-known UK Airbnb property manager with operations in London and other major markets. Its positioning is built around flexible hosting support, with different plans for owners who want either occasional short-letting or year-round management.

Its services include listing optimisation, smart pricing, multi-platform distribution, professional photography, guest support, and cleaning coordination. Houst’s pricing pages mention flexible commission structures and different plan types, including options for owners who use their property part-time and those letting full-time.

What is less clear from public pages is how fees, platform charges, and add-ons vary between cities and contract types. Some plan-specific benefits, such as onboarding fee treatment or reduced management fees, appear to depend on the contract selected. Owners should ask for a written breakdown of what is included, what is optional, and what applies to each property in their portfolio.

Best for: owners who want a recognised operator with flexible plan options and are comfortable clarifying the fee structure before signing.

Stayful — nationwide management with published fees

Stayful presents itself as a nationwide Airbnb rental management provider with a clearly published 15% + VAT management fee. Its public pages are unusually direct about what is included and what is not, which makes it easier for owners to compare net returns.

The standard service includes multi-platform listing management across Airbnb, Booking.com, VRBO, Google, and Stayful Direct, daily dynamic pricing, 24/7 guest communication, professional photography and listing copywriting, cleaning coordination, key management, maintenance coordination, review management, and monthly income reporting. Stayful also states that cleaning costs are passed to guests at cost, and maintenance materials are charged at cost.

The main point to verify is location depth. “Nationwide” coverage does not always mean the same level of operational density in every city, borough, or rural area. Owners outside major demand centres should ask who handles cleaning, key access, inspections, and issue response locally.

Best for: owners who want published fees, clear inclusions, and broad UK coverage without a long enquiry process.

HelloGuest — low-fee nationwide short-let management

HelloGuest promotes itself as a nationwide Airbnb property management UK provider, with services across England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Its pages describe the company as operating “from city to coast”, which is useful for owners outside the biggest city markets.

The service includes listing creation, pricing optimisation, guest communication, occupancy management, and day-to-day short-let operations. HelloGuest publishes fees from 12%, and its pages highlight a high review volume and award recognition, including Airbnb-related hosting recognition.

The missing detail is how service delivery works across every covered location. Nationwide coverage can depend heavily on local contractor quality, response times, and market-specific pricing. Owners should ask whether the same services are delivered directly in each city, which costs are passed on, and whether dashboard access or reporting is included as standard.

Best for: owners looking for a lower published commission and broad UK coverage, especially if they want to compare national options beyond London.

CityRelay — London-focused flexible letting

CityRelay is strongest in London, where it positions itself around flexible letting rather than only short-term stays. Its model combines short, mid, and long lets to maximise yield, which can be useful in a market affected by seasonality and the 90-night rule.

Its published service includes marketing, guest vetting, payment collection, property maintenance, and flexible lettings management. CityRelay also highlights data-driven technology and London property expertise, with public pages focused heavily on London property owners and portfolio management.

Its main limitation is geographic. CityRelay may be a strong fit for London owners, but it is not presented as a broad national Airbnb management provider in the same way as some competitors. Commission information is not always published clearly on primary service pages, so owners should request a full fee schedule, including management fees, cleaning, maintenance handling, and any onboarding costs.

Best for: London owners who want a flexible letting strategy rather than pure short-let management.

SmartHost — a London and Dubai operator

SmartHost appears to operate across London and Dubai, with a focus on Airbnb and flexible letting services. Its positioning is more boutique than national, making it more relevant for owners in its active markets than for those comparing full UK coverage.

Its service pages mention complete Airbnb and flexible letting services, guest experience, pricing support, and property management. SmartHost also provides a dashboard login, suggesting owners or operators may have access to a management system, although the website does not explain the dashboard features in detail.

The main issue is limited public transparency. Commission, city-by-city UK coverage, onboarding fees, and specific service inclusions are not clearly published on the main pages. For owners comparing UK providers, this means SmartHost requires a direct enquiry before it can be fairly compared on cost or scope.

Best for: owners with properties in London who are open to a smaller operator and willing to request detailed commercial terms directly.

Where coverage gaps actually matter

Coverage gaps usually become obvious after signing, not during the sales call. For an owner with properties in both London and a regional city, the question is whether the operator can deliver the same cleaning standards, guest response times, and revenue management outside the capital. Not every company strong in London has the same depth in Manchester, Leeds, Bristol, or coastal markets.

The second issue is expansion. If you add a property in a city where your operator does not work, you may need a second Airbnb management service, creating fragmented reporting and inconsistent guest standards.

The third issue is rural or coastal coverage. These properties often have fewer operator options, different cleaning logistics, and less standardised commission structures. Owners should confirm local delivery before comparing headline fees.

Direct comparison: coverage, commission, and inclusions

The table below summarises what each operator publishes and where direct enquiry is required.

The 90-night rule: why your operator choice has regulatory consequences

In London, entire residential properties can only be used for short-term letting for up to 90 nights per calendar year without planning permission. The rule applies across platforms, not just Airbnb. London City Hall’s guidance makes clear that legal requirements apply to short-term letting regardless of how the property is organised or marketed.

This matters when choosing an operator. A good Airbnb property manager should understand how the rule affects pricing, channel strategy, and the balance between short, mid, and long stays. If an operator promises year-round short-let income in London without explaining the 90-night cap, ask more questions before signing.

Four questions to ask any UK operator before signing

1. Does your commission rate vary between cities, and what is the rate for each property in my portfolio?
2. Is regulatory compliance, including the London 90-night cap or local authority licensing, included in your standard service or billed separately?
3. If I add a property in a city where you do not currently operate, what happens to my contract?
4. What are the minimum contract terms and the conditions for early exit?

Request written answers to all four before signing anything.

Final Thoughts

Choosing between UK Airbnb management companies is not only a question of headline commission. For owners with a national or multi-city portfolio, the real comparison is coverage breadth, fee consistency, and regulatory competence.

A genuinely national operator should be able to show where it works, what is included, how commissions vary by market, and how owner reporting works across every property. A company that performs well in one city may still be the wrong choice if its service becomes thin elsewhere.

Before signing, audit each provider against coverage, commission, inclusions, and compliance. This gives a clearer view of expected net income than a headline fee alone.