Global Property
ROI Comparison.

A short letter, before the tables. This piece compares property returns across seven international markets - resort, gateway, and lifestyle. It is a positioning piece, not a forecast. The numbers are directional. The judgement is the point.

If you only read one paragraph, read this one. Thailand - and Phuket in particular - continues to offer one of the more attractive total-return profiles among major resort markets when you combine entry pricing, gross yield, currency, and capital growth. Dubai trades higher growth velocity for higher entry pricing and higher cyclicality. Bali offers similar yield with materially weaker title for foreign buyers. Portugal and southern Europe offer residency, not returns. The UK and Australia offer certainty, not yield. The comparison only matters once you have decided what you are optimising for.

Most investors compare markets on one number. Usually price per square metre. Occasionally headline yield. Almost never the seven variables that actually decide realised return: net yield, capital growth, transaction cost, holding cost, currency, liquidity, and ownership rights. A market that wins on the wrong number can lose on every line that matters. The point of this page is to put the trade-offs in the open, in one place, in the order a serious investor would read them.

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."

These are realistic ranges for an institutional-quality asset held through a full cycle. Thailand stands out for the combination of net yield and tourism-backed demand. Dubai has led headline capital growth in the current cycle on the back of tax migration, financial-centre status and deep buyer liquidity. Portugal offers freehold ownership, European residency optionality and steady growth at moderate volatility. Bali delivers the highest gross yields with the highest operational complexity. The UK and Australia trade headline return for institutional liquidity, currency depth and rule-of-law certainty.

1. 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.
2. Ownership structure is non-negotiable. Leasehold-only markets (Bali) carry exit constraints that do not appear in any yield table.
3. 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.
4. Currency is structural, not tactical. Exposure should be sized to a level the investor can hold through a full cycle without forced conversion.
5. Liquidity defines the exit. Thailand and Bali are slower exits than the UK or Australia. Underwrite the hold to that reality.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

Illustrative effect of currency on realised return.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Use this article to narrow your shortlist, not to make the buy decision. Once you have identified the two or three markets that fit your mandate, the next step is sub-market analysis, not more cross-market browsing.

• Phuket vs Bali vs Dubai vs Portugal Price Index - the four-market price view
• Best Places to Invest in Asia - Asia-only comparison
• Phuket's Affordability Advantage - why entry pricing matters at exit
• Phuket Property Investment - the deepest sub-market we cover