They are correct for 2025. The change triggers in 2026.

Yeah, I was wrong.... I didn't realize they had added so many recently.... however, looking at where I will be staying through the end of 2025 and what properties are available.... it doesn't make sense still for those. Just looking at Rome, the W is more than $200 a night more through the Edit Program than it is for the same nights directly with Marriott, and as Lifetime Titanium, I'm not really getting more from the $100 credit at the property, other than using CSR points for doing so (other than paying with points). Although I have stayed there, I prefer 2 other hotels in the same area that I think are nicer, better staffed, treat me better, etc... and are not even half the price.

Thanks for pointing that out, I probably be able to find some here and there, but still will be tough for me spending down these points, and definitely not a reason to keep my card.

Saving money is only true if you were going to book that stay anyway.

If you talk yourself into a more expensive stay because you have the credit, you didn't save money. This is so basic and it's the very fallacy they're exploiting.

Can you provide your example dates at W Rome? I just checked a random date of Feb 11, member flexible rate is 549 EUR all in, EDIT is 655 USD. The difference is 17 EUR which is just the rack rate vs member rate.

Also lol @ the �Anything more expensive than I can afford is a waste of money� attitude from some folks in this thread.

yes!!

so for a really small subset of people they legitimately would stay at ultra luxury hotels�but for most it is going to cost them more. My point is that Chase can�t possibly make this card profitable with that tiny subset. Amex is totally different since Resy is very easy to use and the hotels on there are way cheaper

Today November 8th, through the 12th, was what I was looking at. 17 Euros, the chase site is giving you the prices in USD by default, no? I can't even change the currency on the chase sight, but my default in my Marriott App is USD as well. If I look at next week, the 13th to the 19th of November $863 per night with Marriott directly, through Chase it's $1,091 per night (for the base king room). If I use points, it's so much in favor of me using Bonvoy Points vs. Chase when you look at the value per point according to my app right now, Most say the best value of Bonvoy points is between 0.8 Cents and 1 cent per point and Chase CSR points now having a max value of 2 cents, I am looking 371,200 all in for a week in a Premier Guest Room with Terrace (and I will get upgraded from that with my status) in Bonvoy points vs. 361,806 in CSR points.... this is a rip off. If I cut the stay to 5 nights exactly the room takes less Bonvoy points than CSR points. Looking at the base rooms in points has very similar results.

I don't know where your statistics come from.

Yes, ultra is by definition a small set.

However, the ultra-luxury market is rapidly growing because there is demand. The rise of luxury hospitality | Arthur D. Little

I don't know how many Chase Sapphire Reserve cardholders there are but if you look at Amex Platinum/Centurion stats, there are about 1.36 M out of total of 141 M Amex cards. There are around 149M Chase cards out there. So it's not inconceivable that the number of Reserve cardholders is in that ballpark but slightly smaller than Amex.

If you look at the number of ultra-luxury hotel rooms compared to the number of cardholders, I don't think the percentage of cardholders who look at these hotels are as small as you think. There are also likely many who are tempted to try and are willing to spend more on hotels but had not had the opportunities to try it until now.

Are they spending more than before? Yes, but I would argue they are also receiving value as a result.

The rates are only off by $23 for a two night stay at the W Rome next week. Unless you compare to non-refundable rate, or member rate (which is a $48 difference over 2 nights)

Very key points and a much more sober reflection on how to value the benefits.

The way I mostly approach these credits (including the Amex Plat ones) are as a "bonus" if I can get a nicer stay for the same or less money.

i.e. -Trip to London next month. I know where I would stay and at what price. Then checking FHR/THC on Amex, I saw a nicer hotel for the same money I would have paid anyway., once the credit is applied. That makes the credit valuable for me. But it is NOT a complete value of $300 in my mind.
I have found that occasionally both can be true - a nicer experience and a real savings over what I would have paid. Weekends in DC in off seasons can be great. But again, these are for trips I would take anyway.

Similarly, if I use the $100 credit for dinner at the hotel, I value it at whatever I would have otherwise spent at dinner. And I don't often have $100 dinners. So the real value is more like $30-$40.

I agree with SP03 that it isn't only a really small subset of people who stay at ultra luxury hotels. The fact that these hotels are by far not going out of business for lack of filling rooms, means there are more peoplebooking there than you think there are and their occupancy rate is high enough to keep them profitably in business.

Can you give an example of the exact same hotel being "way cheaper" with FHR/THC than with Edit? I personally haven't seen it.

Comparing hotels that are just in the same city is not comparing apples to apples. Like you can't compare a Four Seasons that's on Edit to a Conrad that's on FHR just because they're located in the same city your searched for; to me that's not a fair comparison at all. You may not want to spend the $$$$ on the 4 Seasons but putting that up as a comparison to a much cheaper Conrad isn't a fair comparison at all.

AGREE......none of these benefits are really saving me any money, because I could just stay home, cook my own meals, and read a book or watch TV, but I've found very reasonable (after the credits) properties in Minneapolis, Chicago, and Las Vegas that make Amex worthwhile.

Hilton is running a sale on a lot of their properties and the THC rate is actually a little cheaper than booking with Hilton directly.

When I can stay 2 nights in a decent hotel for "cheap" it's a good deal, but Chase's Edit has far fewer hotels that are "cheap" even after the credits.

Agree......but FHR/THC (in my experience...and I don't have a Sapphire Reserve) is much easier to use than Edit if you are part of the subset of users that likes to use these benefts without having to spend above and beyond if you don't want to.....

Rich people go to Chicago and "less-rich" people also go to Chicago....They probably do different things and have different experiences, but can easily find many things to do in a big city.

If you are an Amex user, and want to use the Saks or Lululemon credits without having to spend over $50 or $75.00, you can find ways to do it......and if you want to stay in hotels and not spend much over the $300 FHR/THC credit, there are places you can go to make that happen.....I just haven't heard of the same opportunities with Edit.

I think the nicest hotel I've stayed at in Chicago was the St Regis (Marriott) Chicago on off peak, using a free-night certificate...Was it the nicest hotel in Chicago or equivalent to the Four Seasons....No...but it was nice enough for me.

i think 1 key difference about the edit and fhr is you can do aspirational redemption with the edit, while it is less so with fhr. you can stack the $300 travel credit, IHG credit come 2026, and the edit credits, and then redeem the rest of the stay using point boost at 2cpm. isnt this a key reason why so many people are in the miles and points game?

savings dont have to be in absolute $ amount sometimes

Some people want to use miles to achieve aspirational experiences they otherwise wouldn't be able to afford or want to spend cash on. Others want to use miles to save money and bring down the overall spending.

Both are valid and hence the divide in opinions on here.

i agree. and that is exactly my point; that there are different customers out there, and why the edit may suit them better, which is in contrast to what they are stating