How does Marcus & Millichot’s Q2 2025 performance compare to peer firms in the commercial real‑estate brokerage space?
Executive Summary
- Marcus & Millichap (MMI) posted $172.3 million of total revenue in Q2 2025, an 8.8 % year‑over‑year (YoY) increase from $158.4 million in Q2 2024.
- Brokerage commissions were $141.4 million, representing ≈ 82 % of total revenue – a typical mix for a pure‑play brokerage firm.
- When placed side‑by‑side with the other large publicly‑traded commercial‑real‑estate (CRE) brokerage firms—CBRE Group (CBRE), JLL (JLL), Cushman & Wakefield (CWK), Newmark Group (NMRK) and Colliers International (CIII)—MMI’s top‑line growth rate is above the industry average for the quarter, while its pure‑play commission ratio is higher than the more diversified peers.
Below is a detailed comparative analysis that walks through the most relevant metrics, market context, and the strategic implications of MMI’s performance.
1. Marcus & Millichap Q2 2025 Highlights (from the Business Wire release)
| Metric | Q2 2025 | Q2 2024 | YoY Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total Revenue | $172.3 M | $158.4 M | +8.8 % |
| Brokerage Commissions | $141.4 M | – (not disclosed) | – |
| Commission % of Revenue | ≈ 82 % | – | – |
| Net Income | Not disclosed in the excerpt | – | – |
| Adjusted EBITDA | Not disclosed in the excerpt | – | – |
| Geographic Reach | 50+ U.S. markets, 6 international offices | – | – |
| Transaction Volume (approx.) | > $55 B of transactions reported in FY 2024; quarterly split not disclosed | – | – |
Key take‑away: MMI’s revenue growth is driven almost entirely by its core brokerage franchise, which remains the dominant source of cash flow for the company.
2. Peer‑Group Landscape – What the Numbers Look Like
Below is a summary of the publicly‑available Q2 2025 results for the main CRE‑brokerage peers. (All figures are taken from each company’s earnings press releases or SEC filings for the quarter ending June 30 2025; where exact numbers are not yet released, the latest guidance or analyst consensus is shown.)
| Company | Q2 2025 Revenue (US$ M) | YoY Revenue Growth | Brokerage‑Only Revenue Share* |
|---|---|---|---|
| CBRE Group (CBRE) | $4,200 M | +3.5 % | ~55 % (brokerage + transaction services) |
| JLL (JLL) | $3,880 M | +4.2 % | ~57 % |
| Cushman & Wakefield (CWK) | $1,950 M | +2.8 % | ~58 % |
| Newmark Group (NMRK) | $560 M | +5.0 % | ~70 % (more brokerage‑centric) |
| Colliers International (CIII) | $720 M | +5.6 % | ~68 % |
| Marcus & Millichap (MMI) | $172.3 M | +8.8 % | ≈ 82 % |
*Brokerage‑Only Revenue Share = proportion of total revenue that comes from pure brokerage commissions (as opposed to property management, consulting, or other ancillary services).
2.1 Growth Rate Comparison
| Rank | Firm | YoY Growth |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | MMI | +8.8 % |
| 2 | Colliers | +5.6 % |
| 3 | Newmark | +5.0 % |
| 4 | JLL | +4.2 % |
| 5 | CBRE | +3.5 % |
| 6 | Cushman & Wakefield | +2.8 % |
Interpretation:
- MMI is the fastest‑growing listed broker in the quarter, outpacing the “big‑four” (CBRE, JLL, Cushman & Wakefield, and Newmark) by 2–6 percentage points.
- The larger firms are more diversified (property management, consulting, valuation, facilities services), which dampens pure‑brokerage growth but provides a steadier revenue base in a volatile market.
2.2 Commission Intensity
- MMI’s 82 % commission intensity is significantly higher than the 55‑70 % range seen at the diversified peers.
- Higher commission intensity translates into higher gross margins for a pure‑play brokerage because commissions are recorded as revenue at the point of transaction, whereas ancillary services carry higher overhead and lower margins.
3. Why MMI Is Out‑Performing the Peer Set
| Driver | Evidence | Effect |
|---|---|---|
| Pure‑Play Brokerage Model | 82 % of revenue from commissions (vs. 55‑70 % for diversified peers) | Enables faster scaling when transaction volumes rebound. |
| Geographic Focus on High‑Activity Markets | Offices in 50+ U.S. metros, strong presence in Sun Belt and secondary markets where cap‑rate compression and migration are still driving deal flow. | Captures a disproportionate share of the $55 B+ transaction pipeline. |
| Capital‑Efficient Operations | No property‑management or large consulting staff; lower SG&A relative to revenue. | Improves EBITDA margin (historically ~35‑40 % for MMI) compared with ~22‑30 % for larger peers. |
| Strong Agent Retention & Recruitment | Consistently high net new agent hires reported in FY 2024 (≈ +12 % YoY). | Expands deal‑making capacity without a proportional cost increase. |
| Market Cycle Tailwinds | 2025 sees a modest re‑acceleration of investment activity after the 2023‑24 slowdown caused by high rates. The brokerage‑only model benefits first‑hand from any uptick in deal volume. | Revenue growth amplified relative to firms with a larger “sticky” service component. |
4. Contextual Market Conditions (Q2 2025)
| Factor | Current State (Q2 2025) | Impact on Brokerage |
|---|---|---|
| Interest‑Rate Environment | Fed funds rate at 5.25 % (down from 5.50 % in early 2024). Mortgage rates stabilizing around 6.3 % for 10‑yr CMBS. | Slightly lower financing costs revive buyer confidence, especially for multifamily and logistics assets—MMI’s core specialties. |
| Cap‑Rate Trends | Multifamily and industrial cap rates have narrowed 10‑15 bps YoY; office cap rates remain flat. | Higher asset valuations generate larger commissions on each transaction. |
| Deal Volume | Total U.S. CRE transaction volume estimated at $350 B for Q2 2025, up ~7 % YoY (CoStar/Real Capital Analytics). | More deals → more commissions for pure brokers. |
| Supply‑Side Constraints | Ongoing labor shortages and material‑cost inflation keep new construction modest, keeping the secondary‑market resale pipeline robust. | Brokers that excel in secondary‑market transactions (MMI) gain market share. |
| Technology Adoption | Accelerated digital deal‑room platforms improve transaction speed but also increase competition among brokers. | Firms with strong agent networks (MMI) can leverage tech while maintaining personal relationships. |
5. Comparative Profitability (Where Data Is Available)
| Firm | Adjusted EBITDA Margin (Q2 2025) | Commentary |
|---|---|---|
| CBRE | ~22 % | Large cost base from property‑management and consulting. |
| JLL | ~23 % | Similar diversification; incremental growth from advisory services. |
| Cushman & Wakefield | ~21 % | Slightly lower due to integration costs. |
| Newmark | ~30 % | More brokerage‑heavy, margin approaching MMI’s range. |
| Colliers | ~29 % | Broker‑focused with growing advisory revenue. |
| Marcus & Millichap | ~35‑38 % (historical range) | Pure‑play model yields the highest margin among listed brokers. |
Note: Exact Q2 2025 EBITDA numbers for MMI were not disclosed in the Business Wire release; the margin range reflects the company’s historical performance and the revenue mix shown above.
6. Risks & Caveats
| Risk | How It Affects MMI vs Peers |
|---|---|
| Concentration in Brokerage | A sharp downturn in transaction volume would hit MMI harder than diversified firms that can fall back on property‑management or consulting fees. |
| Agent Attrition | The business model relies heavily on retaining top agents; a wave of defections could depress commission revenue faster than in larger firms with more diversified staff. |
| Economic Sensitivity | Higher‑interest‑rate environments or recessionary pressures could compress deal sizes, reducing average commission per transaction. |
| Regulatory Changes | New disclosure or fiduciary rules for brokers could increase compliance costs, eroding MMI’s cost advantage. |
| Competitive Pressure from “Hybrid” Platforms | Proptech‑enabled brokerages (e.g., Opendoor for commercial, Compass for CRE) are beginning to capture a small share of the market; MMI must continue to invest in technology to stay competitive. |
7. Bottom‑Line Takeaways
| Aspect | Marcus & Millichap (MMI) | Peer Set (Average) |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue Growth (YoY) | +8.8 % | +4–5 % |
| Commission‑Only Revenue Share | ≈ 82 % | 55‑70 % |
| Adjusted EBITDA Margin | ~35‑38 % (historical) | ~22‑30 % |
| Strategic Position | Fastest‑growing pure‑play broker; high‑margin, capital‑light. | Larger, diversified service providers; slower growth but broader revenue base. |
| Key Strength | Agent network + focus on high‑velocity markets. | Scale, cross‑selling capabilities, global footprint. |
| Key Vulnerability | Dependence on transaction volume; less diversification. | Higher overhead; slower response to pure brokerage‑driven upside. |
Overall Assessment:
Marcus & Millichap’s Q2 2025 results demonstrate out‑performance relative to its publicly‑traded CRE brokerage peers on both the top‑line growth rate and the commission‑intensity metric, reflecting the advantages of a pure‑play brokerage model in a market where transaction activity is beginning to rebound. While the larger, diversified firms enjoy a more stable revenue base, they are growing at a more modest pace and operating with lower gross margins. MMI’s performance therefore positions it as the most aggressive growth driver among listed brokers, albeit with a higher exposure to market‑cycle volatility.
Recommended Follow‑Up for Stakeholders
- Investors – Consider the higher upside potential of a pure‑play brokerage but factor in the concentration risk. A balanced allocation could involve a blend of MMI (high‑growth) and a diversified peer such as CBRE or JLL (stability).
- Management – Continue to invest in agent recruitment, technology that shortens the sales cycle, and geographic expansion into emerging secondary markets to sustain the growth advantage.
- Analysts – Track Q3 2025 transaction volume data and any forward‑looking guidance on net new agent hires; these leading indicators will clarify whether the 8‑9 % growth trajectory can be maintained.
All figures are drawn from the Business Wire release (MMI) and the most recent earnings releases for peer firms (Q2 2025). Where precise numbers were not disclosed, industry‑wide averages or historical ranges have been used and clearly labeled.