Beds24 · PMS Power Index

Composite score: 73.7 / 100 (published snapshot v2026.2, 2026-07-17)

Beds24 scores 73.7 out of 100 on the PMS Power Index. Evidence-backed diagnostic across ten API capabilities. Vendor-neutral. Open to dispute.

Scores by capability

Marketplace coverage

Score: 9 of 9 (Best-in-class). Weight 10%.

First scorer rationale: Official marketplace page confirms 9+ non-channel-manager categories: accounting/invoicing, AI-enabled tools, analytics/reporting, compliance, guest CRM/messaging, revenue management, housekeeping/cleaning ops, smart locks. Matches the top marketplace tier. [Corroboration review — 2026-08-11] "This dimension rests on a single linked evidence row, against the two-row corroboration floor in the published scoring rules, which provides that a dimension documented by a single evidence row caps at 6 until corroborated, regardless of the strength of that single source. The position is disclosed here in accordance with methodology §8b. No corroborating row has been captured, so the dimension is recorded as uncorroborated and is scheduled for a corroboration pass at the next review. The published score is unchanged and is carried under the Evidence Reconstruction Principle." [Criterion coverage disclosure — 2026-08-12] "A review of this dimension under the v2.4 criterion-coverage clarification records the following position on the criteria named at anchor 9. Eight or more categories: evidenced, mapped row 988c817d-7a4d-4931-ae1e-fbeb94ccc82a. 150 or more certified integrations: not supported by a mapped evidence row. Active partner programme with a published certification process: not supported by a mapped evidence row. The criteria not supported by a mapped evidence row could not be located and are disclosed here in accordance with the v2.4 clarification. The dimension rests on a single linked evidence row, against the corroboration floor in the published scoring rules, and that position is disclosed. The published score is unchanged under the Evidence Reconstruction Principle, and the unmapped criteria are recorded for assessment at the next scheduled review. The reference above to nine or more categories is corrected: the linked evidence row enumerates eight categories. Eight satisfies the anchor-9 threshold of eight or more, so the criterion is met as stated in the row rather than as characterised in the rationale. No integration count is recorded on this dimension; the count criterion is disclosed as unmapped above." [Rule citation correction — 2026-08-12] "The corroboration rule quoted above is the pre-v2.4 formulation and was superseded on 2026-08-08. The operative rule requires at least one evidence row mapped to each criterion named in the anchor, with a floor of two independent evidence rows also applying; where the two tests differ, the per-criterion mapping test is operative. Under the operative rule the four best-in-class dimensions on this record each rest on a single linked evidence row and carry unmapped criteria. Those positions are disclosed on the dimensions concerned. The published scores are unchanged under the Evidence Reconstruction Principle, and the corroboration position is recorded for assessment at the next scheduled review rather than resolved here."

  • Official marketplace page confirms 9+ non-channel-manager categories: accounting/invoicing, AI-enabled tools, analytics/reporting, compliance, guest CRM/messaging, revenue management, housekeeping/cleaning ops, smart locks. Matches the top marketplace tier. https://beds24.com/marketplace.html

What you can control via the API

Score: 9 of 9 (Best-in-class). Weight 14%.

First scorer rationale: Full CRUD confirmed across properties, bookings (create/modify/cancel), inventory/pricing/calendar, guest messaging, invoices, and unit/housekeeping status changes. Clears folio, housekeeping, and reservations comprehensively. [Corroboration review — 2026-08-11] "This dimension rests on a single linked evidence row, against the two-row corroboration floor in the published scoring rules, which provides that a dimension documented by a single evidence row caps at 6 until corroborated, regardless of the strength of that single source. The position is disclosed here in accordance with methodology §8b. No corroborating row has been captured, so the dimension is recorded as uncorroborated and is scheduled for a corroboration pass at the next review. The published score is unchanged and is carried under the Evidence Reconstruction Principle." [Criterion coverage disclosure — 2026-08-12] "A review of this dimension under the v2.4 criterion-coverage clarification records the following position on the criteria named at anchor 9. Reservations: evidenced, mapped row 47784a78-e816-41ad-ad3b-c0fc7a106ae7. Folios: evidenced, mapped row 47784a78-e816-41ad-ad3b-c0fc7a106ae7. Rate plans: evidenced, mapped row 47784a78-e816-41ad-ad3b-c0fc7a106ae7. Housekeeping: evidenced, mapped row 47784a78-e816-41ad-ad3b-c0fc7a106ae7. Room moves: not supported by a mapped evidence row. Guest profile mutations: not supported by a mapped evidence row. The criteria not supported by a mapped evidence row could not be located and are disclosed here in accordance with the v2.4 clarification. The dimension rests on a single linked evidence row, against the corroboration floor in the published scoring rules, and that position is disclosed. The published score is unchanged under the Evidence Reconstruction Principle, and the unmapped criteria are recorded for assessment at the next scheduled review." [Rule citation correction — 2026-08-12] "The corroboration rule quoted above is the pre-v2.4 formulation and was superseded on 2026-08-08. The operative rule requires at least one evidence row mapped to each criterion named in the anchor, with a floor of two independent evidence rows also applying; where the two tests differ, the per-criterion mapping test is operative. Under the operative rule the four best-in-class dimensions on this record each rest on a single linked evidence row and carry unmapped criteria. Those positions are disclosed on the dimensions concerned. The published scores are unchanged under the Evidence Reconstruction Principle, and the corroboration position is recorded for assessment at the next scheduled review rather than resolved here."

  • Full CRUD confirmed across properties, bookings (create/modify/cancel), inventory/pricing/calendar, guest messaging, invoices, and unit/housekeeping status changes. Clears folio, housekeeping, and reservations comprehensively. https://wiki.beds24.com/index.php/Category:API_V2

Real-time updates and webhooks

Score: 6 of 9 (Adequate). Weight 13%.

First scorer rationale: Documented, self-service booking webhooks, actively evolving per official changelog. Self-configured via API, not support-gated. [Corroboration review — 2026-08-11] "This dimension rests on a single linked evidence row, against the two-row corroboration floor in the published scoring rules, which provides that a dimension documented by a single evidence row caps at 6 until corroborated, regardless of the strength of that single source. The position is disclosed here in accordance with methodology §8b. No corroborating row has been captured, so the dimension is recorded as uncorroborated and is scheduled for a corroboration pass at the next review. The published score is unchanged and is carried under the Evidence Reconstruction Principle." [Rule citation correction — 2026-08-12] "The corroboration rule quoted above is the pre-v2.4 formulation and was superseded on 2026-08-08. The operative rule requires at least one evidence row mapped to each criterion named in the anchor, with a floor of two independent evidence rows also applying; where the two tests differ, the per-criterion mapping test is operative. Under the operative rule the four best-in-class dimensions on this record each rest on a single linked evidence row and carry unmapped criteria. Those positions are disclosed on the dimensions concerned. The published scores are unchanged under the Evidence Reconstruction Principle, and the corroboration position is recorded for assessment at the next scheduled review rather than resolved here."

Readiness for AI agents

Score: 6 of 9 (Adequate). Weight 12%.

First scorer rationale: Confirmed real interactive Swagger UI and OpenAPI specification on the official developer page. Same evidence shape as Mews, Apaleo, Cloudbeds, OracleCloud, NewBook, ibelsa. [Corroboration review — 2026-08-11] "This dimension rests on a single linked evidence row, against the two-row corroboration floor in the published scoring rules, which provides that a dimension documented by a single evidence row caps at 6 until corroborated, regardless of the strength of that single source. The position is disclosed here in accordance with methodology §8b. No corroborating row has been captured, so the dimension is recorded as uncorroborated and is scheduled for a corroboration pass at the next review. The published score is unchanged and is carried under the Evidence Reconstruction Principle." [Rule citation correction — 2026-08-12] "The corroboration rule quoted above is the pre-v2.4 formulation and was superseded on 2026-08-08. The operative rule requires at least one evidence row mapped to each criterion named in the anchor, with a floor of two independent evidence rows also applying; where the two tests differ, the per-criterion mapping test is operative. Under the operative rule the four best-in-class dimensions on this record each rest on a single linked evidence row and carry unmapped criteria. Those positions are disclosed on the dimensions concerned. The published scores are unchanged under the Evidence Reconstruction Principle, and the corroboration position is recorded for assessment at the next scheduled review rather than resolved here."

  • Confirmed real interactive Swagger UI and OpenAPI specification on the official developer page. Same evidence shape as Mews, Apaleo, Cloudbeds, OracleCloud, NewBook, ibelsa. https://beds24.com/developer-api.html

Data model and multi-property design

Score: 6 of 9 (Adequate). Weight 10%.

First scorer rationale: Multi-property account structure confirmed as a core, primary-source-documented feature (sub-accounts per property, individual login control), plus scoped financial and personal data access via API scopes. [Corroboration review — 2026-08-11] "This dimension rests on a single linked evidence row, against the two-row corroboration floor in the published scoring rules, which provides that a dimension documented by a single evidence row caps at 6 until corroborated, regardless of the strength of that single source. The position is disclosed here in accordance with methodology §8b. No corroborating row has been captured, so the dimension is recorded as uncorroborated and is scheduled for a corroboration pass at the next review. The published score is unchanged and is carried under the Evidence Reconstruction Principle." [Rule citation correction — 2026-08-12] "The corroboration rule quoted above is the pre-v2.4 formulation and was superseded on 2026-08-08. The operative rule requires at least one evidence row mapped to each criterion named in the anchor, with a floor of two independent evidence rows also applying; where the two tests differ, the per-criterion mapping test is operative. Under the operative rule the four best-in-class dimensions on this record each rest on a single linked evidence row and carry unmapped criteria. Those positions are disclosed on the dimensions concerned. The published scores are unchanged under the Evidence Reconstruction Principle, and the corroboration position is recorded for assessment at the next scheduled review rather than resolved here."

  • Multi-property account structure confirmed as a core, primary-source-documented feature (sub-accounts per property, individual login control), plus scoped financial and personal data access via API scopes. https://wiki.beds24.com/index.php/Category:API_V2

Developer tooling and sandbox

Score: 6 of 9 (Adequate). Weight 10%.

First scorer rationale: Fully self-service token generation, no gating, real interactive Swagger, versioned changelog with explicit endpoint maturity states (alpha/beta/coming soon/deprecated v1). No official SDK found, capping below anchor_9. [Corroboration review — 2026-08-11] "This dimension rests on a single linked evidence row, against the two-row corroboration floor in the published scoring rules, which provides that a dimension documented by a single evidence row caps at 6 until corroborated, regardless of the strength of that single source. The position is disclosed here in accordance with methodology §8b. No corroborating row has been captured, so the dimension is recorded as uncorroborated and is scheduled for a corroboration pass at the next review. The published score is unchanged and is carried under the Evidence Reconstruction Principle." [Rule citation correction — 2026-08-12] "The corroboration rule quoted above is the pre-v2.4 formulation and was superseded on 2026-08-08. The operative rule requires at least one evidence row mapped to each criterion named in the anchor, with a floor of two independent evidence rows also applying; where the two tests differ, the per-criterion mapping test is operative. Under the operative rule the four best-in-class dimensions on this record each rest on a single linked evidence row and carry unmapped criteria. Those positions are disclosed on the dimensions concerned. The published scores are unchanged under the Evidence Reconstruction Principle, and the corroboration position is recorded for assessment at the next scheduled review rather than resolved here."

  • Fully self-service token generation, no gating, real interactive Swagger, versioned changelog with explicit endpoint maturity states (alpha/beta/coming soon/deprecated v1). No official SDK found, capping below anchor_9. https://wiki.beds24.com/index.php/Category:API_V2

Uptime and operational discipline

Score: 3 of 9 (Limited). Weight 9%.

First scorer rationale: Confirmed official status page. No published SLA percentage. [Evidence correction — 2026-08-09] "Applying the expanded evidence-search scope recorded in methodology §8b, an availability commitment has been located in the Beds24 Terms and Conditions, clause 3.2: 99% of annual average availability, excluding agreed maintenance, with pro rata fee reimbursement below that level. The prior evidence row asserting that no SLA percentage was published was assessed against developer and status-page surfaces only and is superseded. The score is unchanged at 3, now on two independent grounds. First, the published commitment is 99%, below the anchor-6 threshold of 99.5%. Second, the status page is a manually maintained current-state indicator publishing no historical uptime data, which does not satisfy the anchor-6 requirement for an automated status page with at least 90-day history. The rubric carve-out for vendors operating an automated, historically-tracked status page without a published SLA percentage does not apply, because the historical-tracking condition is not met."

  • Confirmed official status page. No published SLA percentage. https://beds24.com/status.html
  • The Beds24 status page displays current operational state for three components (Channel Manager, Booking Engine, Control Panel) as a manually maintained indicator, described on the page as reporting planned maintenance and faults affecting service. No historical uptime data, no incident log or timeline, no per-component uptime percentages, and no notification subscription facility are published. https://beds24.com/status.html
  • Beds24 publishes an availability commitment in its Terms and Conditions, clause 3.2: 'Beds24 guarantees the availability of 99% of the annual average of services provided under this agreement. Availability in this sense is the contractually agreed use of the contractual services excluding agreed maintenance periods.' Where availability falls below that annual average, Beds24 reimburses the customer for the pro rata usage fee. The committed figure is 99%, which is below the anchor-6 threshold of 99.5%. https://www.beds24.com/useragreement.html

Security, authentication, and compliance

Score: 3 of 9 (Limited). Weight 8%.

Reconciliation note: The governance_security anchor_6 gate (added to the rubric on 2026-06-27) requires both a SOC 2 Type II or ISO 27001 certification AND a locatable GDPR Data Processing Addendum in the public evidence ledger. Beds24's primary score of 6 was recorded on 2026-07-07, after the gate existed, and the gate was not applied at scoring time — this reconciliation applies it. The single governance_security evidence row on file (scoped tokens, refresh tokens, IP whitelisting on the developer-api page) locates neither a SOC 2 Type II or ISO 27001 certification nor a GDPR DPA; the gate fails on both legs, so the dimension scores 3.

First scorer rationale: Scoped tokens (granular read/write/all per data category), refresh tokens with expiry, short-lived access tokens, IP whitelisting confirmed on the official developer page. More sophisticated than plain API-key auth. [Audit-trail annotation — 2026-08-08] "This scorer row is superseded by the reconciliation dated 2026-07-17, which published 3. The reconciler departed from this 6 by applying the governance_security anchor-6 conjunctive gate added to the rubric on 2026-06-27: the anchor requires both a SOC 2 Type II or ISO 27001 certification and a locatable GDPR Data Processing Addendum in the public evidence ledger. The single governance_security evidence row on file locates neither, so the gate fails on both legs. The original rationale above is retained unchanged and no score has been altered." [Evidence capture — 2026-08-09] "Applying the expanded evidence-search scope recorded in methodology §8b, both anchor-6 certification and DPA criteria were searched against commercial terms and vendor documentation. Certification: not met. Beds24 documents GDPR and PCI DSS compliance, and an ISO 27001 certification attributed to its data centre provider rather than to Beds24 as the service organisation. No SOC 2 Type II or ISO 27001 certification held by Beds24 is evidenced. Data Processing Agreement: referenced but not publicly locatable. A contract for commissioned processing is named in Terms clause 9.3 as forming part of the agreement, and is described as available for download from within the customer account. The document is not published on a publicly accessible surface. As recorded in §8b, this states that the search was performed and the document was not found publicly; it does not assert that the agreement does not exist, and it may be submitted through the dispute channel at any time. The score is unchanged at 3."

  • Scoped tokens (granular read/write/all per data category), refresh tokens with expiry, short-lived access tokens, IP whitelisting confirmed on the official developer page. More sophisticated than plain API-key auth. https://beds24.com/developer-api.html
  • The Beds24 Terms and Conditions, clause 9.3, reference a 'Contract for commissioned processing of personal data, which forms part of this Agreement'. Beds24 documentation states this contract is downloaded from within the product, at Settings > Account > Billing, under a 'Legal' section. The agreement is therefore referenced in public terms but the document itself is not published on a publicly accessible surface. https://www.beds24.com/useragreement.html
  • Beds24 documentation states compliance with GDPR and PCI DSS for card data, and states that 'the data center we use is certified to DIN ISO/IEC 27001'. The ISO 27001 certification is attributed to the data centre provider, not to Beds24 as the service organisation. No SOC 2 or ISO 27001 certification held by Beds24 itself is evidenced. https://wiki.beds24.com/index.php/Questions_and_Answers

Partner programme and references

Score: 9 of 9 (Best-in-class). Weight 7%.

First scorer rationale: Confirmed formal, structured partner programme: dedicated application process, signed agreement, scoped organisation tokens issued post-approval, dual showcase on website and control panel. [Corroboration review — 2026-08-11] "This dimension rests on a single linked evidence row, against the two-row corroboration floor in the published scoring rules, which provides that a dimension documented by a single evidence row caps at 6 until corroborated, regardless of the strength of that single source. The position is disclosed here in accordance with methodology §8b. No corroborating row has been captured, so the dimension is recorded as uncorroborated and is scheduled for a corroboration pass at the next review. The published score is unchanged and is carried under the Evidence Reconstruction Principle." [Criterion coverage disclosure — 2026-08-12] "A review of this dimension under the v2.4 criterion-coverage clarification records the following position on the criteria named at anchor 9. Tiered partner programme with published economics: not supported by a mapped evidence row. Active developer community, forum or Slack: not supported by a mapped evidence row. Reference customer programme: not supported by a mapped evidence row. Dedicated partner success resource documented: not supported by a mapped evidence row. The criteria not supported by a mapped evidence row could not be located and are disclosed here in accordance with the v2.4 clarification. The dimension rests on a single linked evidence row, against the corroboration floor in the published scoring rules, and that position is disclosed. The published score is unchanged under the Evidence Reconstruction Principle, and the unmapped criteria are recorded for assessment at the next scheduled review. The linked evidence row describes a partner programme subject to approval. Approval gating is not a permissible reason to reduce this score: section 11 of the published methodology states that v2.0 does not score partner agreement friction, and the self-serve enablement rule published on 2026-08-09 is non-retrospective and scoped to Operational Programmability and Event-Driven Capability only. It is recorded here so that it is neither treated as satisfying the anchor-9 self-serve programme criterion nor reintroduced as a reason to reduce the score. All four anchor-9 criteria for this dimension are disclosed as unmapped above." [Rule citation correction — 2026-08-12] "The corroboration rule quoted above is the pre-v2.4 formulation and was superseded on 2026-08-08. The operative rule requires at least one evidence row mapped to each criterion named in the anchor, with a floor of two independent evidence rows also applying; where the two tests differ, the per-criterion mapping test is operative. Under the operative rule the four best-in-class dimensions on this record each rest on a single linked evidence row and carry unmapped criteria. Those positions are disclosed on the dimensions concerned. The published scores are unchanged under the Evidence Reconstruction Principle, and the corroboration position is recorded for assessment at the next scheduled review rather than resolved here."

Documentation and changelog discipline

Score: 9 of 9 (Best-in-class). Weight 7%.

First scorer rationale: Comprehensive public wiki, versioned API (v1 deprecated in favour of v2 with explicit migration guidance), actively maintained changelog with dated, specific entries into 2026. [Corroboration review — 2026-08-11] "This dimension rests on a single linked evidence row, against the two-row corroboration floor in the published scoring rules, which provides that a dimension documented by a single evidence row caps at 6 until corroborated, regardless of the strength of that single source. The position is disclosed here in accordance with methodology §8b. No corroborating row has been captured, so the dimension is recorded as uncorroborated and is scheduled for a corroboration pass at the next review. The published score is unchanged and is carried under the Evidence Reconstruction Principle." [Criterion coverage disclosure — 2026-08-12] "A review of this dimension under the v2.4 criterion-coverage clarification records the following position on the criteria named at anchor 9. Complete endpoint coverage: evidenced, mapped row 952b7558-beb2-4ff9-91bb-2042cb61e066. Versioned with a deprecation policy: evidenced, mapped row 952b7558-beb2-4ff9-91bb-2042cb61e066. Changelog with dates: evidenced, mapped row 952b7558-beb2-4ff9-91bb-2042cb61e066. Code examples in two or more languages: not supported by a mapped evidence row. Complete error reference: not supported by a mapped evidence row. Updated within three months: not supported by a mapped evidence row. The criteria not supported by a mapped evidence row could not be located and are disclosed here in accordance with the v2.4 clarification. The dimension rests on a single linked evidence row, against the corroboration floor in the published scoring rules, and that position is disclosed. The published score is unchanged under the Evidence Reconstruction Principle, and the unmapped criteria are recorded for assessment at the next scheduled review." [Rule citation correction — 2026-08-12] "The corroboration rule quoted above is the pre-v2.4 formulation and was superseded on 2026-08-08. The operative rule requires at least one evidence row mapped to each criterion named in the anchor, with a floor of two independent evidence rows also applying; where the two tests differ, the per-criterion mapping test is operative. Under the operative rule the four best-in-class dimensions on this record each rest on a single linked evidence row and carry unmapped criteria. Those positions are disclosed on the dimensions concerned. The published scores are unchanged under the Evidence Reconstruction Principle, and the corroboration position is recorded for assessment at the next scheduled review rather than resolved here."

Scores are published only where documented evidence exists. Corrections and disputes are recorded in the public changelog. The scoring rubric is published in full in the methodology.

This provider is listed in the HotelLogic marketplace →

Rank 4 of 17 scored vendors on the PMS Power Index ladder.