The project dashboard is a free tool that is only available to verified hoteliers to make adopting new technology easier by streamlining their research and simplifying their communication workflow.
各产品在不同物业规模、类型和区域的 物业管理系统 供应商中的排名——基于各细分市场中酒店从业者的经验证评价。
按酒店规模
| 细分市场 |
|
CQR |
|---|---|---|
| 小型(10-24 间客房) ▾ | #26 28 条评价 | — |
| 中型(25-74 间客房) | #46 4 条评价 | — |
| 大型(75-199 间客房) | #32 2 条评价 | — |
| 超大型(200+ 间客房) | #31 1 条评价 | — |
按物业类型
| 细分市场 |
|
CQR |
|---|---|---|
| 精品酒店 ▾ | #31 16 条评价 | — |
| 豪华酒店 | #44 4 条评价 | — |
| 品牌/连锁酒店 | #43 4 条评价 | — |
| 长住酒店 ▾ | #32 5 条评价 | — |
按区域
| 细分市场 |
|
CQR |
|---|---|---|
| 北美 ▾ | #25 8 条评价 | — |
| 欧洲 ▾ | #20 25 条评价 | — |
| 亚太 | #16 4 条评价 | — |
| 中东 | #11 2 条评价 | — |
Choosing between Counter by Counter and CQR PMS by CQR comes down to your property’s specific needs and operational priorities. Both systems aim to streamline hotel management, but Counter offers a more feature-rich, widely adopted platform tailored for hostels and small hotels. CQR, with its limited reviews and regional absence, still presents some options but lacks the proven track record of Counter. So, which system aligns best with your hotel’s goals?
Counter is designed to serve busy hostels and small hotel teams seeking a highly functional, easy-to-use system with extensive integrations and support. CQR, meanwhile, remains a lower-profile option, possibly suitable if you value a local or niche provider but with less confidence in its support or features. Does your team prioritize proven reliability and features?
Counter is a property management system built specifically for hostels, boasting a 4.73/5 overall rating based on 54 reviews, most recent within the last six months. Its core strength lies in ease of use, customer support, and a rich set of features like channel management, booking engine, and automation tools. Conversely, CQR PMS has no publicly available reviews, no recent feedback, and zero verified integrations, making it difficult to gauge its effectiveness or user satisfaction.
Counter’s reviews highlight simplicity, quick onboarding, and responsive support as key benefits, especially appreciated by hostel operators managing high-volume bookings. CQR’s lack of active reviews and absence from regional markets suggest less confidence and proven performance. Given this, which platform do you trust to support your current and future growth?
If your hotel primarily operates as a hostel or small property requiring a flexible, easy-to-use system with integrated channel management, Counter is the clear choice. Its 16.5+ HTR Score and 4.73/5 overall rating from 54 recent reviews reflect strong satisfaction, especially in ease of use and support.
If your focus is on a less established provider or you’re operating outside Counter’s supported regions (Europe, North America, Middle East, South America, Asia Pacific, Africa), or if you prefer a system with fewer features for a more streamlined operation, CQR might be an option—but with less confidence. Keep in mind, Counter’s extensive integrations and proven track record make it more reliable for high-volume, guest-focused operations.
Counter’s user interface is lauded for its simplicity, receiving a 4.6/5 ease of use rating. Users describe it as intuitive, with a clean layout that staff can learn quickly, often requiring minimal training. The onboarding experience is rated 4.7/5, with many reviews emphasizing fast, helpful support from dedicated agents like Evelyn and Max, who respond promptly to issues.
CQR lacks publicly available review data, so assessing its usability is speculative. Given Counter’s high user ratings and recent positive feedback, it’s clear that Counter provides a more user-friendly experience. Edge: Counter.
Counter offers 19 features, including a channel manager, booking engine, automated night audit, POS integration, guest CRM, group booking, multi-currency, and multi-lingual support. These tools address key operational needs and are often cited as differentiators, especially the automated revenue and housekeeping modules.
CQR’s feature set isn’t detailed, with no unique features listed or verified integrations available. This limits its comparability and suggests Counter’s feature-rich environment is more suited for active property management. Edge: Counter.
Counter’s support receives a 4.96/5 rating, with reviews praising its responsiveness, professionalism, and helpfulness. Specific mentions include quick responses from team members like Evelyn and Max, who assist with technical issues and onboarding.
There is no publicly available review data for CQR’s support, leaving its service quality unverified. Given Counter’s high satisfaction ratings and recent positive reviews, it clearly offers superior support. Edge: Counter.
Counter integrates with 7 verified partners, including industry leaders like SiteMinder, Stripe, and Cloudbeds, offering flexibility for multi-platform operations. Its integrations support channel management, payments, and access control, simplifying daily tasks.
CQR has no verified partners or integrations listed, which significantly limits its utility in a multi-platform environment. For hotels seeking connectivity to multiple OTAs and payment solutions, Counter’s integrations are a strong advantage. Edge: Counter.
Counter’s reviews, totaling 54 in recent months, show a high satisfaction rate with a 91% likelihood to recommend. Hotels of various sizes, especially hostels, rate it 4.75/5 for its ease of use, support, and features.
CQR’s lack of reviews or ratings prevents any meaningful comparison. Without a proven track record, Counter’s ratings serve as a more reliable indicator of user satisfaction. Edge: Counter.
Neither Counter nor CQR publicly lists pricing details, which suggests they may customize quotes based on property size or requirements. Counter’s model emphasizes no implementation fee and no free tier, implying a paid service with possible variable costs based on features.
CQR’s pricing remains unconfirmed; therefore, your best approach is to request quotes from both providers. Given Counter’s transparency and established value, it likely offers better clarity on ROI.
Not ideal if you:
Edge: Counter.
Not ideal if you:
Edge: CQR (tentative, due to lack of reviews).
Counter by Counter stands out as the more trusted and feature-complete PMS, especially for hostels and small hotels. Its extensive integrations, high user ratings, and recent positive reviews confirm its position as a reliable choice for busy properties aiming to optimize operations.
CQR PMS remains an untested option with no recent feedback or verified integrations, limiting its appeal unless you have specific regional or niche needs. For most hoteliers seeking a proven, supported, and comprehensive system, Counter is the clear winner.
If your hotel values proven reliability, extensive features, and excellent support, Counter is the best fit. Choose CQR only if you are exploring niche solutions with niche markets and are willing to accept unverified support quality.
In summary, Counter’s proven track record and feature set make it the safer, more strategic investment for your hotel’s growth and operational efficiency.
酒店从业者喜爱的方面
酒店经营者认为 Counter 的界面简洁、直观且用户友好,便于快速培训新员工。移动和桌面界面运行良好,允许管理人员远程处理任务。它尤其以日历和日历管理的简单... 酒店经营者认为 Counter 的界面简洁、直观且用户友好,便于快速培训新员工。移动和桌面界面运行良好,允许管理人员远程处理任务。它尤其以日历和日历管理的简单性而著称。
Counter 的支持团队因其响应迅速和乐于助人而经常受到称赞。Evelyn 和 Max 等员工因其专业精神而受到特别表扬。然而,有人担心某些时区的支持速度较慢。
用户对 Counter 的自动化功能非常满意,其中包括非接触式登记入住、自动信用卡收费以及跨平台管理预订等任务。这种自动化功能减少了员工工作量并提高了运营效率... 用户对 Counter 的自动化功能非常满意,其中包括非接触式登记入住、自动信用卡收费以及跨平台管理预订等任务。这种自动化功能减少了员工工作量并提高了运营效率。
酒店从业者提出异议的方面
几位酒店老板提到系统中存在持续存在的错误,尤其是超额预订、床位显示和取消预订时的系统错误等问题。这些错误对日常运营和客人体验产生了负面影响。
酒店经营者对 Counter 的报告功能表示赞赏,但指出报告可以改进,以便提供更好的见解。收入管理功能被认为不足,特别是对于采用多种房价计划或使用动态定价的企... 酒店经营者对 Counter 的报告功能表示赞赏,但指出报告可以改进,以便提供更好的见解。收入管理功能被认为不足,特别是对于采用多种房价计划或使用动态定价的企业而言。
独特功能
评分差异最大的方面
这取决于您的需求。Counter 和 CQR PMS 共享许多核心 Property Management Systems 功能,但各有独特的能力。Counter 提供 7 个经验证的集成合作伙伴,而 CQR PMS 提供 0 个。在切换之前,请查看上方的功能对比以了解它们的差异。
小型酒店应优先考虑易用性和快速入职。Counter 在易用性方面领先,评分为 4.6/5 对比 0.0/5。寻找透明定价以及试用或演示选项。在各产品页面上按物业规模筛选评价,了解与您类似的酒店的反馈。
Counter:否。CQR PMS:否。 两款产品目前均不提供免费版。大多数 Property Management Systems 供应商提供演示或试用——在做出承诺之前,请分别向各供应商申请体验。
HT Score 是一个综合排名,考虑 4 个标准组和十多个变量,帮助酒店从业者客观比较酒店科技产品。Counter 的 HT Score 为 17,CQR 的为 0。以下是评分的计算方式。
| 标准组 | 权重 | 衡量内容 |
|---|---|---|
| 客户评分与评价 |
|
用户对该产品的推荐度如何? 评分分数、评价数量、声量份额、评价深度、评价时效性、成功案例 ▾ 权重最高的因素。分析平均满意度评分(推荐可能性、易用性、支持、投资回报率)、相对于同类产品的评价总数、评价时效性(最近 6 个月内至少 20 条评价)以及跨独立酒店客户的声量份额以检测选择偏差。 |
| 合作伙伴生态系统 |
|
技术合作伙伴对该公司的推荐度如何? 合作伙伴推荐、集成数量、集成质量 ▾ 评估合作伙伴推荐作为专家信心投票、经验证集成的数量以及生态系统质量——集成合作伙伴的平均 HT Score。拥有更高质量集成生态系统的产品更有可能提供互联互通的技术栈。 |
| 以客户为中心 |
|
该组织以客户为中心的程度如何? 认证支持、评价一致性、资料完整性 ▾ 评估公司是否获得 HTR 客户支持认证、是否保持持续的评价收集(反馈驱动文化的指标)以及产品资料是否完整,包括功能、截图、定价和特性。 |
| 覆盖范围、持久力与资源 |
|
该公司的覆盖范围和资源有多广泛? 地理覆盖、持久力、公司资源、趋势评分 ▾ 衡量全球覆盖(服务的国家和区域)、经营年限作为稳定性指标、团队规模作为资源指标,以及基于近十二个月买家咨询、评价、合作伙伴推荐和媒体活动的趋势评分。 |
客户评分和评价是 HT Score 算法中最重要的因素。HTR 不接受付费以提高排名。所有评价均经过验证——只有经确认从属关系的酒店行业从业者才能提交评分。 查看完整 HT Score 评估方法 →
产品推荐顾问