Property data firm UncommonDeal launched a UK Auction House Performance Index in September 2026, scoring auction houses on six criteria: lots sold, success rate, geographic coverage, investor suitability, transparency and auction frequency. Savills scored 100 out of 100, Allsop 94, and SDL Property Auctions 88, with Auctions House UK (86) and Barnard Marcus (82) completing the top five. Clive Emson, Pattinson, Acuitus, Network Auctions and Hollis Morgan made up the rest of the top ten.
Portfolio landlords and deal sourcers now have a third-party scoring framework that may influence where they direct acquisition activity. Estate agents with auction divisions face public comparison on metrics including success rate and transparency, whilst vendors serving the auction market are likely to use index position in pitches.
What the scores omit
UncommonDeal has not disclosed how it measures two of its six criteria. 'Investor suitability' could reflect lot type, tenure mix, refurbishment scale or yield potential, but no definition is provided. 'Transparency' is similarly undefined: it might assess legal pack quality, fee disclosure, post-auction sold price publication, or buyer feedback mechanisms.
Success rate is the most commercially ambiguous metric. A high success rate may indicate realistic reserves and strong lot quality, or it may reflect aggressive vendor pursuit and lower reserves that increase sale probability but compress hammer premiums. A house with a 75 per cent success rate and strong premiums may deliver better net returns than one with 90 per cent success and guide-price hammers, particularly once buyer fees are included.
Buyer fees vary materially between auction houses and can add several thousand pounds to acquisition cost. The index does not isolate this as a standalone metric, despite its direct impact on investor returns. Koye Beckley, Founder of UncommonDeal, acknowledged the issue: 'For investors, the headline guide price is only one part of the decision. Buyer fees, legal-pack conditions, refurbishment costs and the realistic resale or rental value can materially change whether an auction property represents a good investment.'
UncommonDeal has not stated whether the index is static or updated periodically, whether auction houses can contest scores or submit data corrections, or whether it covers online-only, hybrid and traditional auctions separately.
Commercial incentives and data gaps
UncommonDeal benefits commercially from increased traffic and data subscriptions if the index becomes a reference tool for buyers. There is no disclosure of whether scored auction houses are clients, advertisers or data partners, and no explanation of how the firm sources success rate or transparency data.
The firm describes the index as 'a starting point for further due diligence rather than as a substitute for reviewing individual lots, legal packs, fees and local market evidence'. That framing limits liability but also limits utility: if buyers still need to review fees, legal packs and reserves on a lot-by-lot basis, the index adds a reputational layer rather than a transactional filter.
Beckley's claim that 'our analysis shows meaningful differences' is unsupported by published variance data, statistical significance testing or performance bands. Without knowing whether the gap between a score of 94 and 88 reflects material operational differences or marginal weighting variations, agents and investors cannot calibrate how much weight to give the ranking.