Most agents assume naming a competitor, or even just implying one, is off-limits by default. It is not. What RECO, CREA and the Competition Act actually prohibit is a comparison that is untrue, unsubstantiated or delivered as a personal attack — a true, evidence-backed comparison is allowed under all three.
Key takeaways
RECO’s Bulletin 5.1 addresses comparative claims directly, and its own question for reviewing one is not “did you name a competitor” but: “If a comparative claim is made, is the comparative claim truthful and supported by verifiable facts?” (RECO Bulletin 5.1, Advertising Requirements) That framing matters: the bulletin does not prohibit comparing yourself to a named agent. It requires substantiation, exactly the way it requires substantiation for a “top producer” volume claim — see advertising claims you cannot support for the general framework this sits inside.
CREA’s Code goes further than most agents expect, in the permissive direction. Article 19 states a REALTOR® shall never publicly discredit another registrant and should not comment on another agent’s capacity, integrity or competence in a derogatory manner — but Article 19.3 draws an explicit exception: “This Article does not apply to truthful Advertising by REALTORS®. Any Advertising by a REALTOR® which contains seemingly derogatory statements about other Registrants or competitors, their businesses or their business practices may form the basis of an ethics charge only if such statements are false or misleading within the meaning of the Competition Act, or are otherwise prohibited by law.” (CREA REALTOR® Code, Article 19) Read carefully, that is a narrow and specific test: the question is not whether a comparison sounds unflattering to the other agent, but whether it is false or misleading under the Act. An ad that truthfully states you closed more transactions than a named competitor last quarter, with the figures to back it, sits outside Article 19’s reach even though the competitor may not enjoy reading it.
None of this displaces the Competition Act’s general-impression test, which applies to a comparative ad the same way it applies to any other advertising claim. The Bureau’s plain-language guidance on avoiding deceptive marketing applies with equal force to a claim about yourself and a claim comparing yourself to someone else: the courts weigh the general impression the ad creates alongside its literal wording. (Competition Bureau, deceptive marketing practices) A comparison that is literally true in isolated numbers but creates a false overall impression — comparing your best month against a competitor’s worst, say — can still fail this test even though every individual figure in it checks out.
Naming a competitor is a different question from using CREA’s own trademarks — REALTOR®, REALTOR Link®, MLS® and the associated logos — in a way that implies an affiliation or endorsement that does not exist. Article 27 of the Code requires a REALTOR® to use CREA’s trademarks only in accordance with CREA’s own rules, and separately bars using or registering any mark that is confusingly similar to one of them. (CREA REALTOR® Code, Article 27) A comparative ad that is otherwise compliant can still create a separate problem if its layout, colours or wording implies the other agent’s brokerage or CREA itself has endorsed the comparison — that is a trademark issue, not a truthfulness one, and it needs its own separate check.
It is worth noticing what RECO’s bulletin does not ask. It does not ask whether the other agent consented, whether the comparison is flattering, or whether you are “allowed” to mention a named competitor at all. Its actual question — is the claim truthful and supported by verifiable facts — is the same question the bulletin asks about every other kind of claim on the same page, including the volume/activity and award claims covered in advertising claims you cannot support. A comparative claim is not a special, higher-risk category under RECO’s own framework; it is the same substantiation duty applied to a claim that happens to reference someone else’s numbers instead of only your own. The practical consequence is that the file you would keep to support a “top producer” claim — the underlying sales data, the source, the date range — is the same file that supports a comparative claim, and it should exist before the ad runs, not be assembled afterward if someone asks.
A comparison can be individually sourced and still cross a line if the way it is framed creates a false impression of the competitor’s conduct or competence rather than a true comparison of results — for instance, implying a competitor mishandled a file, misrepresented a listing, or acted unethically, where the actual basis is only a difference in sales volume or pricing outcome. That framing question sits closer to misrepresentation and the line you cannot cross than to ordinary comparative advertising, because it is no longer a claim about your own performance measured against theirs — it is a claim about their conduct, which needs its own factual basis and is exactly the territory Article 19’s general rule against discrediting another registrant is aimed at, before the truthful-advertising exception in 19.3 is even reached.
An agent’s ad states: “I sold 40% more homes than [Named Competitor] last year — source: [Board] MLS® sales data, Jan–Dec.” Run against the frameworks above, this clears every test that actually applies. It names a competitor, but Article 19.3 of the REALTOR® Code only bars a comparison that is false or misleading under the Competition Act — and this one carries a verifiable figure with its source and time period attached, satisfying RECO’s own “truthful and supported by verifiable facts” test at the same time. The one thing to still confirm before running it: that the 40% figure is calculated on a consistent, like-for-like basis — same geography, same transaction type, same period — because a comparison built on mismatched bases is where a literally-sourced number can still create a misleading general impression, and where a defensible-looking file can still fail the general-impression test described above.
Yes, subject to the same rules that govern any advertising claim — RECO requires a comparative claim to be truthful and supported by verifiable facts, and the REALTOR® Code’s Article 19.3 exempts truthful comparative advertising from its general rule against discrediting another registrant.
Not directly. Article 19.3 of the REALTOR® Code states the exception applies unless the statement is false or misleading within the meaning of the Competition Act — tone or how it reads to the other agent is not the stated test.
No, these are separate questions. Naming a competitor in a truthful comparison is addressed by Article 19.3; using CREA’s own trademarks, or anything confusingly similar to them, in a way CREA has not authorized is addressed separately by Article 27.
A quick check against RECO, the REALTOR® Code and the Competition Act catches what proofreading alone will not.
