Aggregator
Trivago stumbled after its initial success but has regained its footing since the last time we put it through the wringer. It went toe-to-toe with our #2 in digging up great prices, but it was not nearly so successful at finding hotels under $200 (and even less so for rates under $75). In fact, Trivago found fewer hotels than any other site on this list except for Expedia (#8) and Hotels.com (#10). Trivago did sometimes win the pricing game by finding a rate direct from the hotel (but our #1 also knows this trick), and it sometimes rustled up lower rates at an OTA than you could find if you searched it directly.
However, Trivago was far more annoying to use than other top sites. It was the only site on this list that never gave an indication of taxes and fees in results—you have to click over to the booking site for that—which means its “lowest rate” might have hidden fees that actually make it far more expensive. Example: Trivago returned a wow quote of $121 on a hotel in Orlando nearly every other site had at $199, but when we clicked over to the site with the deal, Bedsopia, the total you’d pay was actually $246. Is that helpful, Trivago?
It also has meager filters, a shortcoming that is exacerbated by the fact that it only shows the top 125 results based on any given criteria (price, rating, distance from landmark—and that last one is buggy). The featured price displayed in large type was not always the best price (which was displayed either in smaller print or shown only after clicking the “More deals” tab). Worse, sometimes the price was not actually available once we clicked over to the highlighted booking site. Finally, Trivago has partnered with a third party to provide direct booking on some hotels, but that third party has far too many online complaints for us to recommend it.
Pros: Simple user interface; fast refreshes; does direct searches on hotels’ own sites
Cons: Far fewer choices than most; featured prices are not always available, come with hidden taxes and fees, or are from a sketchy OTA; formerly robust filters have been oversimplified; only shows the top 125 results based on a given criteria
Aggregator
Yes, we expected this spot to belong to some scrappy upstart with its roots in the travel industry, but in Google’s relentless campaign to dominate every form of Web search, it has quietly built the best hotel aggregator in the business. You can always Google a hotel’s name directly to see some rates from various sites, but go to Google.com/travel/hotels and you get its full-fledged aggregator interface. Results are lightning fast, the interface is intuitive, and the results were the best in class. Google was the only site on this year’s list that never turned in the worst price, and only once did it deliver a below-average one. It even knew when to look for a rate directly on the hotel’s own site that beat the OTAs.
That said, sometimes a price in Google’s results turned out to be a bit higher once we clicked over to book it, and the option to view prices inclusive of taxes and fees wasn’t available on first sight: You had to click on a specific lodging rather than on the results list page. Its filters could also be better. The key ones are there, but there is no neighborhood or “distance from” filter—though because the results are based on a map inset, you can game that by centering the map over your preferred area.
One true oddity and downside: Google, the supposed King of Search, never found the most options. It was outpaced by Booking and Kayak nearly every time (except in hotels under $75, where Google beat them). Still, Google found more than enough lodgings—and it reigned supreme on price. So much for the little guy!
Pros: Very fast; great at finding the best prices; decent filters; sometimes finds lower prices direct from the hotel; offers the option to see the rate with taxes and fees
Cons: Smaller set of results than on some other sites; needlessly divides results between hotels and vacation rentals; leads with “Ads • Featured Offers” results from partners—but at least it labels them as sponsored.
OTA
Hotels.com returns from the wilderness back into the Top 10 for the first time in five years—possibly because it has added vacation rentals and apartments to its U.S. results. Its resurgence displaces last year’s #10, Hotwire, from our list entirely. However, on that all-important price point, Hotels.com was average at best, and it stumbled in non-U.S. destinations.
Hotels.com does have the best and most robust filters in the business—tied, in fact, with our #2—and using them helps you sort the results in a range of flexible ways. But Hotels.com needs to improve price performance if it wants to rise in the rankings.
Pros: Super-fast refresh; full slate of filtering/sort-by options, including one for accessibility; lots of lodging types; decent (but never the best) prices; honest about the fact it factors its own commissions into ranking the search results (yes, it informs you in teensy fine print you have to click to read, but at least it’s honest)
Cons: Not very strong internationally, especially in the lower price categories.
OTA
Priceline once ruled the middle-of-the-pack booking engines, but now it can’t break out of slot #9, where it lingered last time. It did a decent job on price in the U.S. (and found the most hotels in Orlando), but only a middling job in Europe, and it fell down when it came to Asia and South America.
What keeps Priceline in the running are its three novel ways to save. Blind booking Express Deals offer discounts from 18% to 60%, but you don’t learn the hotel’s name and address until you’ve paid. Pricebreakers are similar, with lower savings (up to 50%), but at least you are told it will be one of three specific hotels. VIP Deals are for members, who sign in and save 5% to 15% on named hotels.
Pros: Express Deals blind bookings and Pricebreaker semi-blind options can knock off up to 50% or 60%; fast refresh
Cons: Priceline’s map view only shows 30 hotels per page, not all the results; private rentals are on a separate results list from hotels, which seems pointless; sub-par filters make it trickier to sort; doesn’t disclose taxes and fees until the final booking page; rounds price quotes down (a minor annoyance, but it feels sneaky)
OTA
Expedia, Travelocity, and Orbitz are corporate sister sites that deliver identical results. We went with Expedia, but the outcome will pretty much be the same at all three.
Expedia dropped out of the top 10 entirely the last time we ran tests, but it has since clawed its way back to the #8 spot with a mediocre performance. It was nearly as lackluster as Kayak in turning up large numbers of lodgings—though we think it’s nice that Expedia does now include apartments and other rental units—but Expedia fared a bit better than last time on rates.
Expedia scored equal numbers of best and worst results, but for the most part it was solidly in the middle. Interestingly, it performed slightly better internationally than in the U.S. (for most sites, it’s the other way around).
Pros: Now offers lots of apartments; pretty decent filters; displays total price with taxes and fees from the get-go (in smaller print beneath the lead price used by its filters)
Cons: Prices consistently merely average (except, for some reason, in London); every apartment or condo unit listed separately, even when there are multiple ones in the same building, which artificially inflates results; “The compensation which a property pays us for bookings made through our sites is also a factor for the relative ranking of properties with similar offers” (that’s bad, but kudos for being upfront about it)
Aggregator
The original name-brand aggregator, Kayak, keeps bouncing around our ranking. Last time, it came in third. This time, it settles at #7 for being merely average in pretty much every respect: price, choice, and filters.
The only times Kayak deviated from the norm in pricing was in London (it did well) and Buenos Aires (it did not). Kayak does have a solid set of filters—including a fill-in window for “nearby…” so you can name any landmark or address; very nice. However, it also somehow put a cookie on our browser that apparently recorded travel searches we had performed on the other sites—it auto-filled destinations and dates when we first logged on. That is creepy and we don’t like it.
Pros: Offers option to include taxes and fees (but you have to select it); offers “Price Alerts” deal tracker; searches direct on some hotel sites; nice filters
Cons: Doesn’t always lead with lowest price; often listed fewer lodgings than its corporate sister site, Booking, which it claims to canvass (as always, this gap in results mystifies us)
Aggregator
Yes, in addition to cataloguing complaints about weird smells, rude clerks, and spotty Wi-Fi, Tripadvisor now aggregates hotel prices so you can just click to book. Most prices it found were at least average or better—it was particularly strong in London and Orlando—and it was the only site to beat Booking at finding the most places under $75 across the board.
Though Tripadvisor’s selection of filters looks pretty strong, they don’t always work. The site does have “user” reviews, but after all these years, they are still not necessarily trustworthy—some experts estimate that between one-third and one-half of all crowdsourced reviews are false, paid for or written by friends, staff, or competitors. (The company disputes that estimate.)
Pros: Handy user reviews, some of which are real; good at finding the cheapest lodgings; sometimes finds lower prices direct from a hotel’s own site
Cons: Hinky filters; mostly average rates; questionable user reviews