The figures do not support Soproni’s conclusion

Soproni TamásOn 15 September 2026, he wrote that since the Airbnb ban came into force in January, the supply of properties available for long-term rent in Terézváros had increased by 32%, while the average rent had fallen from 300,000 to 280,000 forints. From this, he concluded that the ban had already improved the district’s rental market.

Within a few hours, the post had become national news. TheHVGwrote that “there are more and cheaper rental properties in Terézváros since the Airbnb ban”. ThePortfoliosaid that the restriction had brought about a “noticeable change”, whileBlikkwrote of a “huge turnaround” and “clear evidence”. None of the articles examined whether the selected periods and data from other districts actually supported this causal claim.

The problem is not necessarily that the two published figures are false. Rather, they do not prove Soproni’s conclusion. Based on data collected for the same period and using the same methodology, rents had already begun to fall in several districts before the ban. Terézváros moved almost in step with Józsefváros, where there was no ban.

Three facts against the causal claim

The effect of the ban could only be isolated by comparing identical indicators from the same period with a district where no ban was in place. The mayor’s post does not do this. It links figures from different points in time and different indicators into a single narrative.

1. Rents were already falling before the ban

According to ingatlan.comdata from 13 October 2025, between late July and mid-October, advertised rents also fell by10,000 Ftin Districts VI, II, XI and XII. Rents fell by 15,000 in District IX, by 20,000 in Districts XIV and XXII, and by 35,000 in District III. This was a Budapest-wide market movement affecting several districts, and in several places it resulted in a larger fall than in Terézváros. In October, the rent in District VI was 290,000 Ft/month, and ingatlan.com’s January chart later showedthe same 290,000 Ft/monthfigure. Soproni’s comparison of 300,000→280,000 therefore does not measure the fall before and after the January ban. It compares the summer peak of 300,000 with the following September, making the pre-ban decline and seasonal fluctuation appear to be the result of the ban.

2. The fall in Józsefváros was almost as large

Even disregarding what is described above: on an annual basis, the median advertised price in District VI fell by6.7%, and in neighbouring District VIII by6.5%. The difference was just0.2 percentage points. The rental markets of the two inner-Pest districts moved virtually in step, while the zero-day rule is in force only in District VI.

The0.2-percentage-point differenceindicates a shared inner-Pest market movement rather than a distinct price effect from the ban introduced only in Terézváros.

Median: the middle price of rental property listings posted by private individuals. Each row shows the same annual time window, and the figures are nominal advertised rents.

3. Supply increased not only in Terézváros

According to Zengadata from July 2026, more rental properties appeared in most Budapest districts. Supply increased bynearly 25%in both Districts V and VI, and by14%in District XIII over one year. There is no Terézváros-style zero-day ban in District V, yet the increase was roughly the same as in Terézváros.

The latest Zenga data do not show a break in Terézváros either

TheZenga analysis of 9 Septemberreveals three trends:

• District VI:for flats of 40–60 m², the average advertised rent for January–August 2026 is above 300,000 Ft and higher than the 2025 average. According to Zenga, rents therefore did not fall but rose. Moreover, Terézváros is the second most expensive district on Zenga’s list, directly after District V, even though the ban is in force only here.
• Inner districts:in Districts V, VI, VII, VIII and IX, the 2026 bar is nowhere lower than the 2025 one. Increases are visible in Districts VI, VIII and IX, while advertised rents in Districts V and VII remained essentially unchanged.
• Budapest:the monthly average for 2026 rose to its summer peak, then fell by a few thousand forints by September. The same happened in 2024 and 2025: compared with the summer level, the averagefell by 8,000–10,000 Ft.

Zenga publishes the average for a defined range of flat sizes, while ingatlan.com calculates the median from all private listings. The two datasets are based on different samples and use different indicators, so they cannot be combined.

TheZenga research of 14 January 2026found that the ban had not yet reduced rents in District VI. In the capital,rental properties became most expensive in Districts IV and VI.

The average advertised rent for new or nearly new, typically two-room flats in District VI was352,000 Ft/month, higher even than in District V. This is a January snapshot: it shows the price increase at the time, not the September price level.

The advertised sale price did not fall in Terézváros either

The sales market measures a different indicator, so rents cannot be inferred from it alone. Nevertheless, the full picture also includes the fact that in Terézváros, the average advertised price per square metre for second-hand flats and housesrose from 1.585 million to 1.622 million Ft/m²between December 2025 and August 2026. The+2.33%was the largest increase among the selected controls, and it is important to stress again that this happened despite short-term letting being banned only here. During the same period, this indicator fell in Districts V and IX, while it barely changed across Budapest as a whole.

Nominal average advertised price per square metre for second-hand flats and houses. The period and definition are identical in every row. The data come from ingatlan.com’s district publications from December and August.

Soproni drew the wrong conclusion

The mayor assembled a causal success story from three separate measurements, but the data do not support it.The difference of 20,000 forints does not compare price levels before and after the January ban. Similar or greater rent falls also occurred in districts without a ban. Supply in District V expanded similarly to District VI, Zenga still showed rising prices in Terézváros in January, and advertised sale prices rose in Terézváros.

None of this proves that the ban definitely had no effect whatsoever. It does show, however, that the figures presented cannot isolate this effect from Budapest market and seasonal changes. Based on publicly available control data, Soproni’s causal conclusion does not hold up. Yet the press passed on this unchecked claim as fact.

The effect of the ban is more apparent in guest nights

The independent effect of the ban cannot be demonstrated from changes in rents, but it can in the case of guest nights. According to NTAK data, the number of guest nights in District VI fell from 1,432,084 to 983,923 in the first half of 2026. This wasa loss of 448,161 nights, down 31.3%.

During the same period, all nearby districts with high visitor numbers grew: District V by 4.6%, District VII by 10.0%, District VIII by 7.0%, and District IX by 6.2%. Budapest’s overall change was therefore only +0.1%, even though the city also hosted the Champions League final in May. Excluding District VI from the calculation, the other 22 districts together achieved growth of 7.3%. Terézváros’s decline therefore pulled down the capital’s overall indicator by around 7.2 percentage points. This is not a general Budapest trend, but a conspicuous change running counter to the trend in surrounding districts, which emerged after the ban came into force.

According to the Hungarian Hospitality Association, meanwhile, turnover at restaurants, cafés and bars in District VIfell by an average of 30%. The 31.3% fall in guest nights and the 30% fall in hospitality turnover also coincide in time and are similar in scale. This strongly suggests that the loss of tourists may be one of the main causes of falling turnover at hospitality venues. The MVI projected mass business closures and job losses. If the decline persists, it is likely to lead to redundancies, which could also worsen the housing security of those affected.

Moreover,one third of Budapest Airbnbs are operating unlawfully, yet they are unaffected by any ban or tightening of rules. We wrote about this in detail in thehttps://guest.guru/feketezokdossier.

Sources and downloads

All external sources used in one place:

• The conclusion repeated in the press: HVG·Portfolio·Blikk
• Guest nights:NTAK Accommodation Compass, BPDB monthly district data, accessed on 15 September 2026 ·KSH Budapest control data
• Hospitality and projected employment consequences: Turizmus.com article quoting a statement by the Hungarian Hospitality Association
• The claim examined: Soproni Tamás’s post·the Terézváros ordinance
• Ingatlan.com – rental market: district comparison from October 2025·original October district chart·January 2026 publication·original January district chart·September 2026 publication·original September district chart
• Zenga: rental supply data from July 2026·September 2026 analysis·Budapest monthly trend chart·district comparison chart·January 2026 research
• Ingatlan.com – sales market: data from December 2025·original December chart·data from August 2026·original August chart
• Downloadable verification material: data (CSV)·calculated results (JSON)·source notes