Coverage is uneven, and a thin answer usually means our coverage stops here, not that your market is empty. Those two look the same in a report, so this page is deliberately blunt.
By country
| Where | Depth |
|---|---|
| United States | Deep. Property and ownership records, plus national layers for flood, environment, demographics, housing and infrastructure |
| Spain | Workable. Property records answer: address, year built, floor area, use |
| Germany | Property records across 14 of the 16 federal states. Bavaria and Berlin are unavailable |
| France | Shallow: address, property and transaction files, and not much beyond |
| Everywhere else | Open sources and the documents you supply. No parcel or transaction data behind us |
Four countries have real register depth: the United States, Spain, Germany and France. For anywhere else, that one sentence is the whole answer, and it does not need looking up.
This matters more than it sounds: most of what we are asked about is not in the United States. We would rather you knew that before a run than after one.
Inside the United States
As of 2026-09-25, connected sources sit under 49 jurisdiction codes
(48 states and the District of Columbia), and two states have none at all:
Kansas and South Dakota. On 2026-09-11 that figure was nine, and South
Carolina was on the list; it is not any more. The catalogue's summary field
statesCovered returns 45 rather than 49 because it counts only the states
the source registry can route to; both numbers are published here because
picking the larger one is how a coverage claim starts to drift.
Depth is a separate question from reach. Our geography record of 2026-09-14, not re-measured since, has a full property-record sweep in Florida and Texas only; several large states are a handful of counties: Georgia is four, California is eleven of fifty-eight.
Texas does not disclose transaction prices. That is the state's rule, not our limitation, and no vendor we use fills the gap. If your Texas job depends on sale prices, it will not work anywhere, with anyone, and it is better to hear that now.
Three things that will give you a confident wrong answer
These are our defects, stated so you can catch them:
1. The system will not reliably warn you. The coverage check runs for one product out of fifteen. It fired 25 times across 12,542 runs. Check before you run, not after.
2. US federal datasets answer for non-US coordinates. A US housing benchmark has come back for a German address. A number that looks plausible for a market we do not cover deserves suspicion; follow it to its source.
3. Local rules are not applied. The jurisdiction pack does not reach the model on any run, in any country. The analysis does not follow your country's rules on tax, tenure or measurement conventions unless you state them, so state them.
What to do with this
Tell us the market before you start the job. If we do not have depth there, you will get a straight answer and a description of what we could do from open sources and your own documents, which is sometimes enough and sometimes is not.