- Press
- Investors
- Blog
Nationwide survey · N = 2,601 · Fieldwork 5–8 Aug 2026 · Ages 18–48
The economics say move in. Fear says don't.
2,601 people in Greece on sharing a home: who has done it, what holds everyone else back, and why the second bedroom stays empty.
Some context for readers outside Greece. According to Eurostat, Greek households spend a larger share of their income on housing than households in any other EU country, and young Greeks leave the family home later than almost anyone else in Europe. Rents in Athens and Thessaloniki have climbed far faster than wages over the past decade, pushed further by short-term holiday lets in central neighbourhoods. Sharing a flat with someone who is not family, a partner or an old friend has long been associated with student years rather than working life. That is the backdrop to every figure below.
One market, two forces
Demand and resistance each come down to one dominant factor. Nothing else comes close.
of those open to living with a stranger cite the cost of living. Reasons for sharing overall: 70% financial, 22% social, 8% location.
of those who refuse cite safety and trust — and 70% of all respondents rank safety as the most important feature of a flat-sharing platform.
The strategic reading: demand does not need to be created. High rents are already creating it: 73% name rent levels as the biggest difficulty when looking for a home, rising to 83% among 18- to 26-year-olds. The product's job is to lower one clearly identified barrier at the front door.
The fear is of the unknown, literally
Ask everyone how comfortable they would be moving in with a stranger tomorrow, and 55% say "not at all". Ask only the people who have actually done it, and the picture flips: the share who feel comfortable ("quite" plus "very") jumps from 17% to 53%.
All respondents compared with those who have lived with a stranger before
- All respondents
- Lived with a stranger before
Data table
| Answer | All respondents | Lived with a stranger before |
|---|---|---|
| Not at all | 55% | 15% |
| A little | 32% | 32% |
| Quite | 12% | 38% |
| Very | 5% | 15% |
Add that 77% of people who have shared a home say it improved their social life, and the conclusion is hard to avoid: the fear is anticipated, not experienced. People are afraid of the unknown, not of a bad experience they remember. The implication: the first match is the whole funnel. Anything that makes a first flatshare less risky (trial periods, a structured move-in, mediation, an easy way out if it does not work) produces the most persuasive argument there is: the experience itself.
Verification alone is not the product
Third-party verification gets a firm "yes" from only 35% (45% "maybe", 20% "no"). Checks are the entry ticket, not the selling point. Trust here is built by the process, not by a badge.
A large latent market, a thin active slice
Share of all respondents at each stage
- 80%Know what flat sharing isawareness· −20 pts
- 60%Would consider sharing with a strangerintent· −43 pts — the trust gap
- 17%Would be comfortable doing it tomorrowreadiness· −5 pts
- 12%Actively looking right nowtiming
Data table
| Stage | Share | Loss to next stage |
|---|---|---|
| Know what flat sharing is (awareness) | 80% | −20 pts |
| Would consider sharing with a stranger (intent) | 60% | −43 pts — the trust gap |
| Would be comfortable doing it tomorrow (readiness) | 17% | −5 pts |
| Actively looking right now (timing) | 12% | — |
Two separate product problems sit inside this funnel. The trust gap (60% → 17%) is the conversion problem that safety features have to solve. The timing gap (only 12% are looking at any given moment) argues for reaching people before they start searching, with compatibility profiles built early, waitlists and alerts, rather than competing on the number of listings alone.
Match on chores, not demographics
Housework is the top compatibility priority (63%; women 64%, men 56%), the second most common worry in the open-ended answers, and the most common source of real conflict. The pattern sharpens with experience: people who have lived with strangers care more about chores and habits, and far less about social proof such as mutual friends.
Everyone who has shared a home compared with those who have shared with a stranger (multi-select, so shares do not sum to 100%)
- Everyone who has shared
- Have shared with a stranger
Data table
| Factor | Everyone who has shared | Have shared with a stranger |
|---|---|---|
| Approach to household chores | 63% | 70% |
| Habits (smoking, alcohol…) | 38% | 56% |
| Financial or professional situation | 17% | 20% |
| Language spoken | 16% | 12% |
| Relationship status | 15% | 5% |
| Mutual acquaintances | 11% | 3% |
| Eating habits | 9% | 5% |
What this means for the product: matching should weight cleanliness standards, expectations about sharing chores, and habits (smoking, alcohol, daily schedules) well above age, occupation or friends in common. The people with the most experience have already said what matters.
Living with a stranger is a different product
Ask people what the best part of sharing a home was, and the answer depends on who they lived with. Partners and friends bring companionship. Strangers bring something else: financial relief and new people.
Everyone who has shared → those who have shared with a stranger
- Rises among those who have shared with a stranger
- Falls among those who have shared with a stranger
Data table
| Benefit | Everyone who has shared | Have shared with a stranger |
|---|---|---|
| Companionship | 41% | 15% |
| Financial support | 20% | 27% |
| Meeting new people | 5% | 22% |
| Help with chores | 14% | 18% |
| Safety | 12% | 12% |
| Personal growth | 6% | 6% |
The implication for positioning: do not sell living with a stranger as ready-made friendship, because the people who have done it do not describe it that way. Sell it as financial relief plus a wider social circle, with friendship as a possible bonus rather than the promise.
The hardest group to win over is the one that needs it most
All respondents
Data table
| Answer | Share |
|---|---|
| No | 42% |
| Yes | 38% |
| Maybe | 20% |
Share answering "not at all"
Data table
| Answer | Share |
|---|---|
| Women | 58% |
| Men | 42% |
This overlap is the report's most actionable finding about any single group: the largest unmet need sits behind the highest barrier. It is a direct argument for safety features designed with women in mind (verified women-only matching, supported first meetings in person, visible reporting and mediation) as a growth strategy, not a compliance exercise.
What people actually worry about, in their own words
Open-ended answers, ranked by prominence. There are no percentages here: this is qualitative texture, and it lines up almost exactly with the quantitative findings.
- fear of the unknown
- cleanliness & chores
- antisocial or criminal behaviour
- personality fit
- habits
- privacy
- communication
- trust
- safety
- daily schedules
- money
- shared spaces
- sexuality
- arguments
- values
The two largest entries sum up the whole report. The dominant worry (the unknown) is the one that experience dissolves (FIG. 1). The second (chores) is one that good matching can screen for (FIG. 3).
Willingness to pay: promising, but hold it loosely
of tenants say they would pay for facilitation services
of property owners say the same
willingness to pay on both sides of the match
These figures are unusually high, and they need a caveat in any deck: what people say they would pay is not what they actually pay. Treat them as a directional signal, not a revenue forecast. The questionnaire's question about a vetting guarantee appears to have been merged into the general facilitation figures. Recovering that answer, or asking it again, matters, because a vetting guarantee is the safety product this data most clearly suggests people would pay for.
Three ways to tell this story
One dataset, three different leads.
The social angle
More than four in ten Greeks can't afford to rent alone — yet fear of strangers keeps spare rooms empty
Lead with the national figures: 42% cannot afford to rent alone, 73% say rent is the biggest problem when looking for a home, 60% are open to sharing, and 88% of those who refuse cite trust. Close on the human story: 77% of those who have tried it say it improved their social life.
- → FIG. 0 (floor plan)
- → Tension figures (79 / 88)
- → Affordability and gender
The investor angle
Demand exists. One barrier blocks it. Experience removes the barrier. We create that experience.
Four-slide spine: the tension → the funnel (trust gap and timing gap) → the inversion chart as proof the barrier can be overcome → willingness to pay on both sides, with an honest caveat.
- → FIG. 1 (inversion)
- → FIG. 2 (funnel)
- → Willingness-to-pay figures
The product angle
We asked 2,601 people about flatmates. The dealbreaker isn't who you are. It's who does the dishes.
Lead with the chores finding, use the slope chart as the surprise ("strangers are not friends, and that is fine"), and close with the anxiety cloud and what it means for how people are matched.
- → FIG. 3 (compatibility)
- → FIG. 4 (slope)
- → Anxiety cloud
Methodology and honest footnotes
Nationwide survey in Greece, N = 2,601 (55% women, 45% men, aged 18–48), fieldwork 5–8 August 2026, conducted online and face to face in major cities. Figures marked with ~ in the source data are approximate.
- Multi-select questions (compatibility factors, benefits of sharing) do not sum to 100%. Label them as multi-select wherever they are republished.
- The subgroup who have lived with a stranger is ≈ 250 respondents: solid for direction, but quote margins of error when publishing subgroup comparisons.
- The willingness-to-pay answer specific to a guarantee is missing or merged in the source data. Recover it before basing any pricing claim on it.
- 60% "would consider" against 17% "ready tomorrow" is a gap between attitude and behaviour, not a contradiction. Treat them as separate stages of the funnel.