Compare

Comparisons

Vendor and method comparisons for the people who buy property data: insurers, lenders, investors and the analysts who audit their numbers. Each page answers one buying question, names the competitors a tender will actually surface, and lists the public sources every claim rests on. Bytero sells into these markets, and every page says so.

The comparisons

Vendor comparisonProperty data providers for Czechia and SlovakiaWho supplies asking prices, transaction prices, rent and yield, hazard risk and rebuild cost in the two markets, sorted into three layers: price and valuation, natural hazard, and the public registers underneath both. Flat Zone, Intermap, Valuo, ROIPLOT, BuiltMind, PriceHubble and the two cadastres against Bytero, with the four-brands-one-company note on Flat Zone and the EBA rule that an automated model cannot value collateral alone at origination.Vendor comparisonIntermap alternatives for flood risk in Czechia and SlovakiaIntermap builds the Czech insurers' flood maps and is the incumbent. The page lines up Verisk, JBA, Fathom, the reinsurance-broker models, the public ČAP and SVP maps and Bytero Shield on modeled per-address depth, return periods, pluvial cover, defense modeling, API, licensing and documentation, and says plainly where the hydrodynamic vendors beat Bytero.Method comparisonAutomated valuation vs manual appraisal: when each is allowedWhat EBA/GL/2020/06 permits at origination, for monitoring and after a material decline, paragraph by paragraph, with the Czech and Slovak supervisors’ compliance status from the EBA table. A side-by-side on cost, turnaround, consistency, auditability and error profile, the hybrid workflow that satisfies the guidelines, and a worked cost example for a bank monitoring 10,000 collateral properties. No competitor is named.Data comparisonPublic flood maps vs an address-level risk modelThe Czech ČAP tariff zones, the Slovak SVP scenario lines, the Polish ISOK maps and the JRC European maps against an address-level model: the question each answers, resolution, return periods, pluvial, depth, defenses, update cycle and access. Where the public maps are enough on their own, where they stop, and how a model uses them as inputs rather than competing with them.

How these pages are written

Comparison pages written by a vendor usually pick the columns the vendor wins. These pick the columns the buyer asks about, and follow three rules that do not bend.

Every competitor claim traces to a public source

Each fact about another company comes from that company's own website, a public register or a public document, and the source list at the foot of the page links to it. Nothing comes from private offers, forwarded decks or partner conversations, even when we hold them. A claim that cannot be traced is left out or marked as not published, which is a statement about the provider's pages, not about the provider.

Where a competitor is better, the page says so

Where another provider has the deeper transaction history, the hydrodynamic per-address depth, the published validation or the global method, the page states it in the row and again in the notes, and the "choose someone else when" column is written to be used. A comparison that only lists the columns its author wins is an advertisement, and a buyer can tell.

Bytero sells into the same market and says so

These pages are written by Bytero, and Bytero appears in every table on the same terms as everyone else, marked as this site. Its own limits are stated in the same plain language as the competitors’: where its flood depth is inherited rather than simulated, where a model has no legal standing, where a valuer is required. The one thing these pages never do is state which markets Bytero covers; the coverage page is the only place that is allowed.

What is not here

No pricing. Most vendors in these markets quote privately, and a price that is not on a public page is not a fact we can cite, so none appears, including Bytero's own in the tables. No quality scores: a mark in a matrix says what a provider publishes, not how good it is, and the only test that matters is the vendor's output over your own portfolio against a loss you have claims for. No dates on the pages themselves. Data vintages are stated in the sentence that uses them, and pages are revised when the facts behind them move, not re-dated for the sake of it.

And no country lists for Bytero. Coverage moves, and a claim on a comparison page would be stale within months. The coverage page is the single source of truth for which markets are live; everywhere else on this site, including here, points to it instead of repeating it.

Corrections

A vendor who thinks an entry misrepresents them can write to us with the public page that shows otherwise, and the entry will be corrected. A buyer who has found a provider these pages should list can do the same. The pages are only useful if they stay right.

Also on this site: the guides to valuation, hazard risk and price data, the Bytero Live asking-price index, and the coverage page.

Suggest a correction