Montreal 3-bed condos: does 112 days on market mean negotiating room?

[small_quill]

I’m comparing 3-bedroom Montreal condos asking C$955,800 to C$1,434,000. The snapshot shows 10.0% movement and roughly 112 days on market, but the apparent negotiated discount changes sharply with condition.

I’m deciding whether older listings offer genuine leverage or whether vacancy and seller motivation are distorting the picture. Does vacancy explain more than headline demand here? Recent completed sales, withdrawn stock and price-cut timing would be especially useful. Please specify the neighbourhood and property type.

 

[esme_sky]

I wouldn’t treat 112 days alone as evidence of leverage. Withdrawn and relisted units can muddy that number, while renovated and dated condos are not close substitutes even at the same bedroom count. Is the 10.0% figure a change in asking prices, sale-to-list difference, or broader market movement? That definition matters before comparing it with completed sales.

 

[iris_rates]

Vacancy may still matter more than you’re allowing. An empty condo can signal carrying costs or a seller who wants a cleaner closing, although it does not automatically mean distress. I’d separate vacant from occupied listings, then compare original ask, latest cut and final sale price. Also, “Montreal” is too broad here—what neighbourhood boundaries are included in the C$955,800–C$1,434,000 range?

 

[LuckyBeam]

I’d build a small matched set rather than extrapolate across Canada: 3-bedroom condos only, same immediate area, similar condition and building type. Track active, sold and withdrawn listings separately, with original price, cut dates, days exposed, occupancy and any financing friction. If the vacant units cut earlier but do not close at larger discounts, vacancy is probably affecting marketing time more than value.