Six countries, six kinds of glamping

Booking's six national glamping selections do not differ from one another by degree, but in character. They do not measure the market, but they do show what is missing from the well rated slice of our supply.

The region · October 2026

Comparisons about glamping usually look for a single figure: which country has how much of it. We cannot give that figure, and at the end of the article we also write down why not.

What can be measured instead is more interesting: not how much, but what kind. The six countries' selections do not differ from one another by degree, but in structure. And that structure is what a Hungarian investor can learn from.

Hungary: the country of the yurt

Booking's Hungarian glamping selection is strikingly uniform. Five of the ten entries have a yurt in their name, and most of the rest is campsite based: a thermal campsite, an eco campsite, a guesthouse with a yurt.

What is not on the list: a standalone glamping brand, a premium tented concept, urban glamping, a themed product. Not because the supply is not good, since the reviews stand between 9.0 and 9.7. But because on this list glamping largely arrived in the genre from the side of camping and guesthouse lodging, not from hotel thinking.

Croatia: the market of the large operators

The Croatian list is almost the reverse of the Hungarian one. The same name returns several times, because the terrain belongs to chain-like campsite operators, and the dominant product is the mobile home. There is a "premium glamping villa" and a "covered mobile home" among them too.

This is a structurally different market: large capital, large sites, industrial scale operation, and glamping there is a premium band above an existing campsite product, not a standalone business. Hungary has no campsite infrastructure of this depth, so this path does not present itself on its own.

Slovenia: where glamping is already a brand

What stands out on the Slovenian list is that "Luxury Glamping" is not a description but a name: that is what the accommodation calls itself. And there is urban glamping among them too, in Ljubljana.

This is the most instructive of the six. It means that in Slovenia glamping already operates as a category of its own, on which a brand can be built, and which has stepped out of the narrow reading of "sleeping in nature": if it makes sense in the city too, then the product is not the landscape but the form of the accommodation and the service.

Romania: differentiated concepts

On the Romanian list stand names that state a positioning decision: Dome Resort, Adult Only, Tiny Village. This is product differentiation: not just "glamping", but glamping for someone and in some way.

There is nothing like this on the Hungarian list. This is not a question of quality but of marketing: some of the Romanian players are no longer selling the category, but a choice within it.

Austria and Slovakia: the two extremes

Austria's selection is alpine and mixed: sleeping huts, chalet parks, lakeside glamping, and the local unit of an international brand appears too. Here glamping is a complement to a developed mountain tourism, and the mountain itself is the attraction, not the accommodation.

Slovakia gives the most small, independent places: one operator each, with their own name, scattered. Glamping is there as a standalone word in the names on the list, but there is no chain. This is the closest to how the Hungarian market may develop in the coming years, if individual operators remain the defining ones.

What a Hungarian investor can take from this

  1. Of the six selections, the Hungarian one is the least differentiated. This is not a disadvantage, but the most commonly misread competitive situation: there are few unusual places not because there is no demand for them, but because the supply arrived in the genre from another direction.
  2. You do not have to grow into a chain for it to work. The Slovak and Slovenian examples show that a small, independent place can also be well rated and branded.
  3. The name is already positioning. Whoever has in their name whom it is for or what its form is explains less on the booking page.
  4. Urban glamping is not absurd. If it works in Ljubljana, it is worth thinking through what there is demand for around the Hungarian big cities.

Sources, and what CANNOT be claimed from them

What these pages do NOT tell us, and what we therefore do not write down either: how many glamping accommodations there are in a country. These are edited selections of ten items, not supply inventories. The "ten" is the length of the editorial list, not the country's supply.

And on the reviews: the scores between 9.0 and 10.0 are the scores of the places selected into the top ten. To infer the market average from this would be a mistake, and we do not do it.

AND THE MOST IMPORTANT LIMITATION, which we measured afterwards on the pages of 14 countries: these selections do not give a filtered accommodation type but a mixed list. In France several entries are plain guest rooms and apartments, in Portugal the majority of entries are conventional accommodation judging by their names, and in Italy there is a guest house among them too. And an entry is not the same as an operator: in the United Kingdom four entries come from the same settlement, with flower names, which looks like separately listed units of one park; in the Netherlands and in Spain there are also accommodations that appear as two entries.

Therefore every claim in this article refers to the content of the selection, not to the country's market. The two sentences differ by one word, and we only have a source for the first.

What we have no source for: market size in euros, growth rate, segment share, average room rate, occupancy. These come from industry reports, and we have no access to those. If we get it, the article will be updated, and the source will stand here.

← Back to the Knowledge Base