By Konstantin Artemyev

September 24, 2026

Choosing a channel manager can look much more complicated than it really is. There are many systems on the market, and most of them compete with long lists of integrations, hundreds of connected channels, fast synchronisation and different automation features. The choice can feel important — and technically it is — but I would not actually start by choosing the channel manager.

I would start with the PMS.

The PMS is the system a hotel works with every day. Reservations, rooms, rates, guest accounts, housekeeping, payments and, depending on the property, many other operational processes live there. A channel manager has a narrower role. Its job is mainly to send rates and availability from the hotel system to the distribution channels, bring reservations back into the PMS and update inventory quickly enough to avoid problems.

For this reason, I would first choose a PMS that suits the hotel’s size and operating model, and only then look at the distribution options around it.

For a large full-service hotel, the architecture can be quite complex. A property using a system such as Oracle OPERA, with restaurants, additional services, charges posted to guest accounts and many different integrations, may quite naturally use a separate channel manager. In that environment, the quality of the integration, stability of data exchange and the ability of technical support to solve problems quickly matter much more than whether everything comes from the same supplier.

For a smaller or medium-sized independent hotel, I usually prefer a simpler structure. If possible, I would choose a cloud PMS with a channel manager from the same provider, or at least one that is very deeply integrated with it. The fewer separate systems sitting between the PMS and the OTA, the fewer places there are for something to fail, arrive late or arrive incomplete. It also reduces the familiar situation where two support teams explain that the problem belongs to the other system.

A good channel manager, in my view, is one I do not have to think about very often. A rate should reach the OTA, availability should update, a reservation should come back into the PMS, and the room should be removed from further sale when necessary. All of this should happen quickly, accurately and without manual work.

One of the traditional ways channel managers compete with each other is by advertising the number of channels they can connect. Years ago, when I first started working with this technology, that was genuinely important. The OTA market was much more fragmented, the major platforms were less dominant, and we often tried to distribute rates and availability as widely as possible.

The market is different today. For many independent hotels, only a relatively small number of channels produce meaningful business. Having access to two or three hundred OTA connections therefore does not impress me very much by itself. I am more interested in whether the system connects properly to the three, four or five channels that actually matter to that particular hotel.

There are, of course, exceptions. A boutique villa may need a specialised platform. A hostel may have a channel that works especially well for its audience. A resort may depend on a specific market or tour operator. In those cases, the relevant integration can be extremely important. But connecting dozens of small OTAs simply because the channel manager makes it possible usually creates more administration than value.

Every additional channel means another contract, another extranet, another set of rules, promotions and conditions, and another place where something can go wrong. Smaller platforms may also have weaker technical support. So a large wall of logos on a channel manager’s website tells me very little unless the logos I actually need are there.

B2B and corporate distribution make the question more interesting. If a city hotel works seriously with companies, travel agencies or tour operators, I would look carefully at whether the system can distribute negotiated rates and availability to those partners as well. This is not only about reducing work for the reservations department. It also makes life easier for the corporate travel manager or agent, who can see availability and confirm a room without sending emails or making calls.

But again, the decision starts with the hotel’s business rather than with the technology. Which companies and agencies already produce business? Which ones have realistic potential? Which markets are important? Which channels do the hotel’s guests actually use? A connection to one relevant B2B network may be much more valuable than another hundred OTA connections the property will never open.

I would also look at some less visible technical functions. Payments are a good example. If the PMS or channel manager can handle OTA payments or automate work with virtual cards, that can remove a surprising amount of routine work from the front office or reservations team. For me, this is a much more practical advantage than having an integration with an unknown OTA in a market the hotel does not sell to.

So my order of choice is quite simple. First I choose the PMS according to the size of the hotel, its operating model and how comfortable the team is working with it every day. Then I look at the channel managers that integrate properly with that PMS. Only after that do I check whether they cover the specific OTA, B2B and corporate channels the hotel actually needs.

In the end, choosing a channel manager does not really begin with technology. It begins with a much older hotel question: who are our guests, and where do they come from?

A channel manager with three hundred connections is not better simply because two hundred and ninety-five of them will never be used.