A fact published by the responsible authority or entity.
Methodology version 0.1
How a market earns a place in the shortlist.
The method begins with the buyer's objective, normalizes market evidence, and publishes a clear “best for” conclusion rather than a universal winner.
Methodology reviewed 6 August 2026 · Applied across every 2026 ranking
Our authority is methodological: the comparison is reproducible, its evidence is visible, and the uncertainty is not hidden.
1. Define the decision
Every comparison names the investor objective, budget, asset scope, buyer type, time horizon, and material constraints. A market that suits a cash-income buyer may not suit a lifestyle buyer or someone who prioritizes legal familiarity and resale depth.
No universal ranking
Scores are valid only for the stated objective and methodology version. Changing the objective changes the weights and can change the conclusion.
2. Apply eligibility gates
A market is not ranked merely because other sites mention it. Before entering a shortlist, the research pack must establish:
- the legal acquisition route available to the relevant foreign buyer;
- a precise geography and property type;
- a defensible acquisition-cost range;
- comparable income evidence, or evidence relevant to the stated non-income objective;
- material tax, currency, liquidity, supply, and execution risks;
- compatible definitions and reference periods.
3. Normalize before comparing
The platform records whether a value is a transaction, asking price, advertised rent, achieved rent, gross yield, modeled net yield, guaranteed return, or commercial projection. Currency date, unit size, property type, occupancy, operating costs, tax assumptions, and geographic scope remain attached to the value.
Every comparison uses a consistent geography, property type, time period and gross-or-net definition.
4. Score for an objective
The core income objective is income-led international property. Its default weights are:
| Dimension | Weight |
|---|---|
| Net income potential | 30% |
| Entry cost | 20% |
| Foreign-buyer access | 15% |
| Demand depth | 15% |
| Exit liquidity | 10% |
| Operating simplicity | 10% |
The investment score and evidence-completeness score remain separate. A high modeled opportunity supported by limited evidence should look different from a mature market with strong data and a lower return profile.
5. Label the evidence
A range repeated across multiple current market sources after normalizing definitions.
A planning figure derived from available market evidence for like-for-like comparison.
A projection or statement supplied by a seller, developer or project partner.
6. Publish an explainable verdict
Every recommendation states who it applies to, the main reason, the strongest qualification, what would change the conclusion, and the next diligence step. The verdict is dated and linked to the exact score snapshot and claims used.
7. Correct and version
Material changes create a new claim or score version rather than silently overwriting history. Corrections identify what changed, why, when, and which pages were affected. Commercial parties may submit evidence, but they do not approve the resulting conclusion.
Not personalized advice
Continue to sources and disclosures →The method supports research and comparison. It does not replace legal, tax, financial, technical, title, valuation, or transaction advice for an individual purchase.