Cross-Border · Comparative Intelligence
Global Property
ROI Comparison.
Most investors compare countries incorrectly, they compare price. Sophisticated investors compare yield, capital growth, entry price, liquidity, ownership, tax efficiency and demand drivers, then choose the market that fits their mandate. This page is the framework for doing that honestly.
01 The Global ROI Comparison Thesis
Why global roi comparison merits institutional attention.
- 01
Price Is The Worst Comparator
Price per square metre tells you what something costs. It tells you nothing about what it returns, who can own it, how easy it is to exit, or what the net cash yield is after tax. Every serious investor frames the comparison wider than that.
- 02
Compare The Whole Return Profile
Net rental yield, realistic capital growth, transaction costs, holding costs, tax leakage, currency exposure, liquidity and ownership rights. Seven variables. A market that wins on one and loses on six is not the right answer for most mandates.
- 03
Match Market To Mandate
There is no universally 'best' country. There is a best country for an income-led mandate, a different best for a growth mandate, and a different best for a lifestyle or residency mandate. The same investor can rationally hold exposure in two or three of them.
- 04
Demand Drivers Outlive Cycles
Headline yields move with cycles. The underlying demand drivers, tourism, demographics, immigration, infrastructure, financial centre status, move much more slowly. Anchor the comparison on the durable drivers, not the spot numbers.
Global ROI Comparison · Market Signals
Thailand, Dubai, Bali, Portugal, Spain, UK, Australia.
Yield, growth, entry price, liquidity, ownership, tax, demand.
This is a framework, not a recommendation. Every market serves a profile.
Anchored on Knight Frank, CBRE, JLL, Savills, IMF and OECD data.
Executive Summary
What this comparison says, in one paragraph.
Across the seven markets in this comparison, no single jurisdiction wins on every variable. Thailand leads on net yield and tourism-backed demand depth, with the cleanest foreign-condominium ownership framework in Asia outside of Singapore. Dubai leads on headline capital growth in the current cycle and on tax efficiency, with deep buyer liquidity but a cyclical supply pipeline. Bali offers the highest gross yields paired with the highest operational and legal complexity, and remains leasehold-only for foreigners. Portugal and Spain offer European residency optionality and freehold ownership, but lower yield and higher transaction cost. The UK and Australia offer institutional liquidity and rule-of-law certainty, with the lowest yields in the comparison and the highest holding-cost drag.
The right comparison is not "which market is best", it is "which two or three markets fit the mandate at hand."
Key Takeaways
Five things to retain from this page.
- Gross yield is a marketing number. Net yield, after operating costs, management fees, sinking funds, vacancy and tax, is the only number that compares across borders.
- Ownership structure is non-negotiable. Leasehold-only markets (Bali) carry exit constraints that do not appear in any yield table.
- Transaction costs matter more than buyers think. Round-trip costs of 8–15% in Portugal, Spain, the UK and Australia compress short-hold returns materially.
- Currency is structural, not tactical. Exposure should be sized to a level the investor can hold through a full cycle without forced conversion.
- Liquidity defines the exit. Thailand and Bali are slower exits than the UK or Australia. Underwrite the hold to that reality.
The Thesis
Most investors compare the wrong things.
The default cross-border comparison is: "How much does a one-bedroom cost in each city?" That question is intellectually empty. The same USD 250,000 can buy a beachfront condominium in Phuket with an 8% gross yield, a 1-bed in London Zone 3 with a 4% gross yield, or a long-leasehold villa share in Bali with a 12% gross yield and meaningful operational risk. None of these are equivalent assets.
The real comparison runs across seven axes simultaneously: yield, capital growth, entry price, liquidity, ownership rights, tax efficiency and demand drivers. A market that is strong on five and weak on two may still be the right answer for an investor whose mandate happens to value those five. A market that is strong on six and weak on the seventh may be the wrong answer if the seventh is the one that matters to that specific investor.
That is the discipline this page tries to enforce.
Comparison · Yield & Capital Growth
Net yield and realistic capital growth, side by side.
| Market | Net yield (mid-cycle) | Capital growth (10-yr trend) | Volatility |
|---|---|---|---|
| Thailand (Phuket/Pattaya/BKK) | 5–8% (resort/hotel-managed) | 3–6% pa | Moderate |
| Dubai | 5–7% | 4–10% pa (cycle-dependent) | High |
| Bali | 6–9% (operational) | 2–5% pa | High |
| Portugal | 3–5% | 4–7% pa | Moderate |
| Spain | 3–5% | 3–6% pa | Moderate |
| UK (London/regional) | 3–4% | 2–4% pa | Low–moderate |
| Australia (Sydney/Melb) | 2.5–4% | 3–6% pa | Low–moderate |
These are realistic ranges for an institutional-quality asset held through a full cycle, not the headline numbers found in developer marketing. Bali's high gross yield comes with operating volatility that frequently erodes the headline by 30–40%. Dubai's capital growth in the most recent cycle has been exceptional but the market has also delivered drawdowns of 30%+ within investor lifetimes. The UK and Australia trade headline return for institutional liquidity and currency stability.
Comparison · Ownership, Tax & Liquidity
What you actually own, and what it costs to exit.
| Market | Foreign ownership | Round-trip cost | Income tax on rent | Exit liquidity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thailand | Freehold condo (49% quota); leasehold land | ~6–8% | 5–35% progressive | Moderate (3–9 months) |
| Dubai | Freehold in designated zones | ~7–9% | 0% personal income tax | High |
| Bali | Leasehold only (25–30 yr) | ~5–10% | 10–20% effective | Low |
| Portugal | Freehold | ~10–13% | 25–28% on non-resident rent | Moderate |
| Spain | Freehold | ~10–14% | 19–24% non-resident | Moderate |
| UK | Freehold / long leasehold | ~10–15% (incl. SDLT surcharge) | 20–45% progressive | High |
| Australia | FIRB-approved, mostly new-build | ~8–12% | 32.5%+ non-resident | High |
Round-trip cost is the single largest predictor of whether a short-hold strategy works in a given market. A 12–15% round-trip in the UK or Spain means the asset has to grow ~3% per year for five years just to break even on transaction friction. In Dubai or Thailand, the same hold breaks even in roughly half that time.
Tax treatment varies by residency. The numbers above are non-resident defaults; investors with personal tax residency in the asset country face very different rates. Always model net-of-tax in the investor's actual fiscal jurisdiction.
Comparison · Demand Drivers
What actually creates rental demand in each market.
| Market | Primary demand driver | Secondary driver | Structural risk |
|---|---|---|---|
| Thailand | International tourism (35M+ arrivals) | Long-stay, retirement, medical tourism | Tourism concentration; operator quality |
| Dubai | Tax migration; financial centre status | Tourism; expat employment | Supply cycle; geopolitical exposure |
| Bali | Tourism + remote-work migration | Lifestyle long-stay | Infrastructure; regulatory enforcement |
| Portugal | Residency programmes; lifestyle migration | Tourism; remote work | Policy reversal on Golden Visa real estate |
| Spain | Domestic + European tourism | Lifestyle relocation | Holiday-let regulation in major cities |
| UK | Corporate, student, immigration | Domestic owner-occupier | Tax tightening on non-resident landlords |
| Australia | Immigration; domestic demographics | Student housing | Foreign-buyer surcharges; FIRB scope |
Tourism-led markets (Thailand, Bali, Spain, parts of Portugal) deliver higher gross yields but more seasonal income. Migration-led markets (Dubai, Portugal, the UK, Australia) deliver more stable income but lower gross yields and more regulatory exposure to immigration policy. Knowing which driver applies to a given asset is more important than the asset's rental brochure.
Master Comparison Matrix
Seven markets across eleven institutional variables.
The single-screen master comparison. Read across to position any one market against its peers on the eleven variables an institutional investor would actually evaluate, including currency diversification, tourism demand, lifestyle and retirement suitability alongside the conventional financial metrics.
| Variable | Thailand | Dubai | Bali | Portugal | Spain | UK | Australia |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Entry Cost | Low–Moderate | Moderate | Low | Moderate | Moderate | High | High |
| Net Yield | 5–8% | 5–7% | 6–9% | 3–5% | 3–5% | 3–4% | 2.5–4% |
| Capital Growth Drivers | Tourism, supply scarcity | Tax migration, FC status | Tourism, remote work | Residency, lifestyle | Tourism, EU demand | Immigration, demographics | Immigration, scarcity |
| Ownership Structure | Freehold condo (quota); leasehold land | Freehold (designated zones) | Leasehold only | Freehold | Freehold | Freehold / leasehold | FIRB-approved new-build |
| Foreign Ownership Access | High (condo) | High (zones) | Constrained | High | High | High | Restricted |
| Tax Considerations | 5–35% progressive on rent | 0% personal income tax | 10–20% effective | 25–28% non-resident | 19–24% non-resident | 20–45% + SDLT surcharge | 32.5%+ non-resident |
| Liquidity | Moderate | High | Low | Moderate | Moderate | High | High |
| Tourism Demand | Very strong (~35M arrivals) | Strong | Strong | Strong (seasonal) | Strong (seasonal) | Moderate | Moderate |
| Currency Diversification | THB, historically stable EM | AED, USD-pegged | IDR, emerging-market volatility | EUR, major reserve | EUR, major reserve | GBP, major reserve | AUD, commodity-linked |
| Lifestyle Appeal | High (climate, hospitality) | High (urban, tax) | High (wellness, nature) | High (climate, EU access) | High (climate, EU) | Moderate (urban) | High (urban, climate) |
| Retirement Suitability | High | Moderate | Moderate | High | High | Low–Moderate | Moderate |
Indicative positioning for educational comparison. Yield ranges reflect realistic mid-cycle net yields on institutional-quality assets. Tax and ownership descriptors are non-resident defaults; resident treatment varies materially. The currency-diversification row notes the reserve and stability character of each asset currency, not a directional view on future exchange rates.
Cross-Border · Currency Diversification Considerations
Why portfolio construction, not speculation, is the right frame.
Cross-border property investment is simultaneously an asset decision and a currency decision. The investor is choosing both the real estate and the currency it is denominated in. Many sophisticated investors deliberately diversify across multiple currencies rather than concentrating all assets in one.
The decision is best framed as portfolio construction, not currency speculation. The three reference positions:
- Domestic-only allocation. All assets in the home currency. Maximum simplicity, maximum home-currency concentration.
- Multi-jurisdictional allocation. Assets across two or three countries, often within the same currency bloc (e.g. USD-pegged or EUR markets). Reduces single-country risk while limiting FX complexity.
- Multi-currency allocation. Assets denominated in distinctly different currencies. Highest diversification benefit, highest FX-management requirement.
Cross-border investors are simultaneously making an asset decision and a currency decision. The discipline is to evaluate both, deliberately, rather than letting one of them happen by default.
Potential Advantages
- Reduced home-currency concentration
- Access to different economic drivers
- Exposure to tourism and export-led demand
- Purchasing-power diversification across regions
- Lower correlation with domestic asset cycles
Potential Risks
- Exchange-rate fluctuations affecting realised returns
- Conversion-timing risk at entry and exit
- Home-currency volatility versus asset currency
- Repatriation friction and transfer cost
- Uncertainty over future spending-currency needs
Illustrative effect of currency on realised return.
| Illustrative Scenario | Property Return | Currency Impact | Total Home-Currency Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Example A. Currency tailwind | +80% | +10% | Higher than property return alone |
| Example B. Currency headwind | +80% | −10% | Lower than property return alone |
| Example C. Currency neutral | +80% | ~0% | Approximately equal to property return alone |
Illustrative only. Examples are designed to show that currency exposure can enhance or reduce realised returns. They are not forecasts and do not represent any specific market.
Currency movements can positively or negatively impact investment outcomes. Future exchange-rate movements cannot be predicted or guaranteed. Currency exposure should be considered as one component of a diversified investment strategy.
Currency · Thai Baht vs Major Global Currencies
Long-horizon educational context across eight reference currencies.
For investors evaluating Thailand against the other markets in this comparison, the Thai Baht is one of the variables that does not appear on a standard property spreadsheet but materially affects realised cross-border returns. The table below provides indicative ~15-year educational context against eight reference currencies. It is not a forecast.
| Currency | Indicative ~15-yr Range vs THB | General Trend | Volatility | Investor Implication |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| USD - US Dollar | Approx. THB 28–37 / USD over the last ~15 years | Broadly range-bound; cyclical swings tied to US monetary policy and global risk sentiment. | Moderate | Most globally referenced pair; relevant for USD-base investors and for cross-border benchmarking. |
| AUD - Australian Dollar | Approx. THB 17–27 / AUD over the last ~15 years | Correlated with global commodity cycles; periods of relative weakness during commodity downturns. | Moderate to high | AUD-base investors should size THB exposure against the commodity cycle, not the spot rate. |
| GBP - British Pound | Approx. THB 38–55 / GBP over the last ~15 years | Wider range than most majors; structural shifts around Brexit and subsequent monetary cycles. | Moderate to high | GBP-base investors have historically experienced both meaningful tailwinds and headwinds against THB. |
| EUR - Euro | Approx. THB 33–46 / EUR over the last ~15 years | Range-bound with cyclical swings tied to ECB policy and European growth differentials. | Moderate | EUR-base investors typically experience moderate FX translation effects over multi-year holds. |
| CAD - Canadian Dollar | Approx. THB 22–30 / CAD over the last ~15 years | Commodity-sensitive; tracks energy and resource cycles. | Moderate | CAD-base investors share many of the commodity-cycle considerations of AUD. |
| SGD - Singapore Dollar | Approx. THB 22–27 / SGD over the last ~15 years | Tightest range of the comparison; managed by MAS within a trade-weighted band. | Low | SGD-base investors typically experience the smallest FX translation effects against THB. |
| CNY - Chinese Yuan | Approx. THB 4.5–5.7 / CNY over the last ~15 years | Managed by the PBOC within a controlled band; lower observed volatility than freely floating majors. | Low to moderate | CNY-base investors face additional capital-movement considerations beyond pure FX translation. |
| RUB - Russian Ruble | Wide and discontinuous; significant depreciation episodes, particularly post-2014 and post-2022 | Materially more volatile than the other currencies in this comparison; subject to sanctions and capital-control regimes. | High | RUB-base investors have historically experienced the largest THB-translation effects in this set. |
Ranges shown are indicative, drawn from publicly available long-horizon FX history (~15 years) and rounded for educational comparison. They are not live rates, not forecasts, and are not intended as guidance on transaction timing. Past currency performance does not predict future currency performance.
The Thai Baht has historically experienced periods of both appreciation and depreciation against major global currencies while generally demonstrating greater stability than many emerging-market currencies. For deeper context on the structural drivers, see the Macro Intelligence Centre currency section.
Analysis & Interpretation
What the numbers actually mean.
Read across the three matrices and a pattern emerges. The high-yield markets (Thailand, Bali, Dubai) are concentrated in regions with strong tourism or migration tailwinds, looser tax regimes, and either institutional ownership clarity (Thailand condominiums, Dubai freehold zones) or structural ownership constraints (Bali leasehold). The low-yield markets (UK, Australia, parts of Portugal and Spain) are mature, liquid, freehold, but carry heavy transaction and holding-cost drag.
The trade-off is consistent: yield trades against liquidity and rule-of-law certainty. Investors who require institutional exit liquidity pay for it in lower current income. Investors who accept slower exits in exchange for current income receive that current income.
Capital growth is more idiosyncratic and cycle-dependent. Dubai has led in the post-2020 cycle; the UK led in the 1990s and 2000s; Bangkok led across 2010–2017; Lisbon and Porto led 2015–2022. Extrapolating any one cycle forward is a category error.
The institutional reading is to anchor allocation decisions on demand-driver durability and ownership clarity first, and on cyclic capital-growth narratives last.
Common Investor Mistakes
How retail buyers misread cross-border comparisons.
1. Comparing gross yields across jurisdictions. A 7% gross yield in Lisbon and a 7% gross yield in Phuket produce very different net outcomes after tax and operating costs.
2. Treating headline capital growth as forward-looking. Dubai delivered exceptional growth in 2021–2024; that is not a forecast.
3. Ignoring round-trip costs. A 5-year hold in Spain or the UK at 10–14% round-trip cost requires meaningful growth just to break even on friction.
4. Treating leasehold and freehold as interchangeable. They are not. The exit buyer pool is different, financing is different, valuation is different.
5. Sizing currency exposure to the entry FX rate. Currency exposure should be sized to a level the investor can hold through a 20% adverse move without forced conversion.
6. Buying the brochure, not the market. Every market has institutional assets and retail assets. A weak asset in a strong market underperforms a strong asset in a weaker market almost every time.
7. Using residency benefits as the primary investment thesis. Residency programmes change. The asset has to make sense without them.
Opportunities
Where the comparative case is strongest.
Thailand · Resort & hotel-managed. Highest combination of net yield, tourism-backed demand and freehold condominium clarity in the comparison. The institutional case is yield with documented demand fundamentals.
Dubai · Branded residences. Tax efficiency, freehold zones, and a deep buyer pool support a capital-growth-led case, with operator credibility the key underwriting variable.
Portugal · Lifestyle / residency. Lower yield but European residency optionality and freehold; strongest case for investors who value EU mobility alongside the asset.
UK · Institutional liquidity. Lowest yield in the comparison but unmatched liquidity, rule-of-law certainty and currency depth. The case is portfolio anchoring, not income.
Risks
What weakens each market's case.
Thailand: tourism concentration; operator-quality dispersion; THB exposure for non-baht investors.
Dubai: cyclical supply pipeline; episodic price drawdowns; geopolitical correlation.
Bali: leasehold-only structure; infrastructure constraints; enforcement and licensing risk.
Portugal: Golden Visa real-estate eligibility has narrowed; concentrated demand in Lisbon and Algarve.
Spain: escalating short-let regulation in major cities; non-resident tax leakage.
UK: SDLT surcharge for non-residents; multi-year holding-cost drag at low yield.
Australia: FIRB restrictions limit foreign investors largely to new-build stock; high stamp duty surcharges.
Suitable For
Which investor each market actually serves.
Thailand: yield-led investors comfortable with USD/EUR-to-THB exposure and a 5–10 year hold; retirement-income seekers; portfolio diversifiers seeking tourism-backed real assets.
Dubai: capital-growth-led investors; tax-efficient base seekers; investors comfortable with cyclical volatility.
Bali: high-conviction operators with on-the-ground partners; investors who accept leasehold and operational risk for higher gross yield.
Portugal / Spain: European-residency-motivated investors; lifestyle buyers; investors who weight EU mobility alongside return.
UK / Australia: liquidity-led portfolios; legacy planning; investors prioritising rule-of-law certainty over current yield.
Not Suitable For
Where each market is the wrong answer.
Thailand is not the right answer for investors who require an immediate institutional resale market or a domestic-currency income stream.
Dubai is not appropriate for income-led investors with low volatility tolerance.
Bali is not appropriate for investors who require freehold or institutional governance.
Portugal and Spain are not appropriate for pure-yield mandates given low net rents after tax.
The UK and Australia are not appropriate for income-led investors targeting 6%+ net yields.
Investment Conclusion
Use the comparison; do not let it pick for you.
There is no single market that wins this comparison. There is a market that wins for a specific mandate, currency base, hold period and risk tolerance, and that is a different answer for almost every investor who reads this page.
The institutional discipline is: pick the two or three markets that match the mandate, underwrite the specific asset on net-of-tax, net-of-FX assumptions, stress the hold to a downside scenario, and only then commit. The investment calculator exists to make that stress test repeatable. The macro intelligence centre exists to anchor the demand assumptions on real data.
Investor Questions
Global ROI Comparison, frequently asked questions.
- Q01
- Why compare countries on more than price?
- Headline price per square metre is the single most misleading metric in cross-border property investment. Two markets at the same price can produce completely different investor outcomes once yield, ownership rights, currency, tax, transaction costs and exit liquidity are factored in. Sophisticated investors compare the full return profile, not the entry ticket.
- Q02
- Which market produces the highest net yield?
- On a like-for-like net basis, mid-cycle, Thailand's hotel-managed and resort stock typically clears in the 5–8% range, Dubai in the 5–7% range, Bali in the 6–9% range with higher operating volatility, Portugal and Spain in the 3–5% range, the UK in the 3–4% range, and Australia in the 2.5–4% range. These are realistic ranges, not promises, and the comparison is meaningless without matching tax, ownership and exit assumptions.
- Q03
- Can foreigners own freehold property in all these markets?
- No. Thailand allows foreign freehold of condominium units within the 49% building quota. Dubai allows foreign freehold in designated zones. Bali is leasehold-only for foreigners (typically 25–30 years with renewal). Portugal, Spain, the UK and Australia allow full foreign freehold subject to varying restrictions, taxes and disclosure rules. Ownership structure is one of the most important variables and is consistently underweighted by retail buyers.
- Q04
- Where is currency risk highest?
- It is not about which currency is most volatile in isolation, it is about the spread between the investor's home currency and the asset currency. A USD-base investor holding GBP or AUD assets carries different currency dynamics than the same investor in THB or AED. The discipline is to size FX exposure to a level the investor can hold through a cycle without forced selling.
- Q05
- Does Thailand always win this comparison?
- No. Thailand has structural advantages in yield, ownership clarity for condominiums, and tourism-backed demand, but it is illiquid relative to the UK or Australia, has lower headline capital growth than Dubai in recent cycles, and is not appropriate for investors who require a domestic-currency income stream. Every market in this comparison has a profile it serves well and a profile it does not.
- Q06
- How should a global investor actually use this page?
- Read the comparison matrix to anchor expectations. Read the analysis to understand why the numbers behave the way they do. Read the suitability section to determine whether your profile matches the markets you are considering. Then use the calculator to stress-test the specific asset under realistic assumptions. The page is a framework, not a recommendation.
From research to numbers
Compare Thailand resort returns against your home market on like-for-like terms.
Compare Thailand Investment ScenariosIllustrative scenarios using calculator default assumptions. Outcomes vary with market conditions, operator performance and investor inputs.
Share this research
Direct Access
Speak with Frank about global roi comparison.
Request a confidential briefing on current global roi comparison opportunities, market intelligence and acquisition strategy.
- Frank Satar
- Chief Founder & Research Director
- Australia
- +61 494 651 747
- Thailand / WhatsApp
- +66 65 551 3269
Sources & References
Where this research draws its data.
Core Investments cites only published institutional sources. Figures referenced on this page are drawn from, or cross-checked against, the institutions listed below. For our editorial standards and source-vetting process, see our research methodology.
- [1]
Knight Frank
The Wealth Report (Branded Residences & Prime International Residential Index) · 2024
https://www.knightfrank.com/wealthreport → - [2]
- [3]
Savills
Asia Pacific Investment Quarterly & Thailand Spotlight · 2024
https://www.savills.com/research/ → - [4]
JLL Hotels & Hospitality
Hotel Investment Outlook. Asia Pacific (Annual) · 2024
https://www.jll.com/en/insights/research → - [5]
International Monetary Fund (IMF)
World Economic Outlook · 2024
https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO → - [6]
- [7]
- [8]
World Travel & Tourism Council (WTTC)
Economic Impact Reports, Thailand · 2024
https://researchhub.wttc.org/ → - [9]
UN Tourism (UNWTO)
World Tourism Barometer · 2024
https://www.unwto.org/tourism-data/world-tourism-barometer →
Sources last reviewed 2026-06-14
Disclosures
Important information.
ROI comparison disclaimer
Asset class comparisons are intended for educational purposes only. Different asset classes involve different risk profiles, liquidity characteristics, tax treatments and market conditions. Past performance and historical data do not guarantee future results.
Currency disclaimer
Currency markets are inherently volatile. Exchange-rate movements can positively or negatively affect investment returns when converted into an investor's home currency. Currency examples are provided for educational purposes only and do not constitute forecasts.
Legal ownership disclaimer
Property ownership structures, regulations and legal frameworks may change over time. Investors should obtain independent legal advice regarding ownership structures, taxation, residency implications and regulatory compliance before proceeding with any transaction.
General disclaimer
Core Investments provides investment education, market intelligence, research and transaction-support services. Information published on this website is general in nature and does not constitute financial, investment, legal, tax or accounting advice, or personal recommendations. Investors should seek independent professional advice appropriate to their individual circumstances before making any investment decision. Past performance is not indicative of future results.
© Core Investments Research | Frank Satar
Research produced by Core Investments. Reproduction or redistribution without written permission is prohibited.