Sources & Research
Every statistic on this site should be traceable. This page documents the sources behind our claims and the methodology behind our calculations.
In February 2026, we conducted a deep-research audit of every statistical claim on camaudit.io. Several claims that were previously attributed to formal industry studies could not be traced to publicly accessible primary sources. This page reflects that audit. Where sources are weak, we say so.
Industry Statistics
Third-party data points cited across the marketing site. Each claim includes its source, reliability rating, and links to the best available references. Reliability reflects whether a primary, methodology-disclosing source was located.
40% of CAM reconciliations contain material errors
Attributed to Tango Analytics (2023) via secondary sources
Widely cited in industry content. The original Tango Analytics report has not been independently located or verified. Secondary sources (PredictAP, Springbord) restate the figure without linking to the underlying study, methodology, or definition of "material error." We cite this figure as commonly referenced in industry discussions, not as a verified statistic.
No primary study located. Definition of 'material' and methodology not disclosed.
15-20% of billed CAM charges recovered by tenant auditors
Springbord (2025), PredictAP (2026)
Stated in vendor educational content. No primary JLL, Deloitte, or Big 4 report publishing this figure with methodology was located in publicly available 2020-2026 materials. The figure is presented as industry insight without disclosed sample size, asset class mix, or audit protocol.
No primary study or dataset located. Commonly cited but unverified.
3-5% of operating expense recoveries lost annually
Agora Real (2024), industry estimates
Agora Real states "annual third-party reconciliations often uncover 3-5% in overcharges or misclassifications." This frames the figure as audit findings, not specifically landlord under-collection. No specific BOMA study was located for this claim despite prior attribution to "BOMA industry research."
No primary BOMA study located. Nearest source is a vendor educational article.
$25K+ per year for ERP/API integration (Yardi)
Yardi Systems — official interface program
Yardi's official "Become an Interface Partner" page states participation requires an annual fee per interface. The Yardi France page explicitly states "$25,000 per interface per year." The US page confirms the fee structure exists with variation by interface type.
Primary source: official Yardi program page with published pricing.
MRI integration costs (UK G-Cloud procurement data)
MRI Software — UK public procurement pricing
UK G-Cloud pricing documents show MRI Property Management at £55,000/year entry-level (500 leases, 10 users) and list integration line items including RESTful API Web Service at £10,560 and various supplier integrations at £8,040-£13,400.
Primary source (official pricing). UK-specific; may not represent US commercial terms.
400+ hours per year on manual CAM reconciliation
Datagrid (2025)
Datagrid blog states "manual CAM reconciliation consumes 40+ hours monthly," which annualizes to 480+ hours/year. No disclosed study design, sample size, or benchmarking methodology. Likely illustrative positioning for an AI vendor.
No disclosed methodology. Vendor marketing claim.
CAMAudit-Specific Claims
These figures are derived from internal customer data and standard CRE calculations. They are not third-party research and have not been independently validated.
$25,000 average recovery per building per year
Based on average findings across CAMAudit customer audits. Includes gross-up corrections, cap enforcement, base year normalization, and expense classification fixes. Results vary by building size, lease complexity, and prior reconciliation quality. No independent external study validates this specific figure.
42x ROI ($25K recovery / $588 annual cost)
Calculated as $25,000 average recovery divided by $588/year (Professional plan at $49/month rate). Individual results depend on portfolio characteristics. The numerator ($25K) is internal customer data, not independently verified.
$357,000 building value impact (at 7% cap rate)
Standard CRE valuation: $25,000 NOI increase / 7% cap rate = $357,143. Uses a typical cap rate for mid-market commercial office and retail properties. Actual cap rates range from 4% to 10%+ depending on market, asset class, and property condition.
$300K-$500K average annual revenue leak per portfolio
Derived from $25,000 average recovery per building applied to a 12-20 building portfolio. This is an internal extrapolation, not an independent industry statistic.
28% of tenants discover CAM errors without an auditor
Cited from JLL industry reports on tenant self-discovery of billing errors. Primary source not independently verified in our February 2026 audit.
Standards Referenced
ANSI/BOMA Z65.1-2024
Office building measurement standard. CAMAudit gross-up and area calculations comply with the 2024 edition including outdoor amenities measurement updates.
www.boma.orgCalifornia SB 1103
California commercial lease disclosure requirements. CAMAudit generates documentation compliant with SB 1103 30-day response deadlines.
IRS § 6001 / Rev. Proc. 98-25
Federal record retention requirements. CAMAudit retains financial records for 10 years per IRS requirements for commercial real estate documentation.
Methodology Notes
ROI Calculation
ROI figures compare estimated annual recovery per building ($25,000 average from customer data) against subscription cost ($588/year at the $49/month Professional rate). Individual results vary based on building size, lease complexity, expense pools, and the accuracy of prior manual reconciliation.
Building Value Impact
We calculate building value impact using the standard income-capitalization method: increased NOI divided by cap rate. We use a 7% cap rate as representative of mid-market commercial properties. Actual cap rates range from 4% to 10%+ depending on market, asset class, and property condition.
Source Verification Process
In February 2026, we attempted to trace every statistical claim on this site to a publicly accessible primary source (published study, survey, or official documentation). Claims rated “low reliability” could only be found in secondary blog posts or vendor marketing without disclosed methodology. Claims rated “high reliability” have primary sources with published documentation. We continue to update these ratings as better sources become available.
Corrections Policy
If you believe any claim on this site is inaccurate or inadequately sourced, contact us at hello@camaudit.io. We will investigate and update this page.