Skip to content
TRIBE

Singapore Resale Condo Index

Every private resale condominium in Singapore — 2,357 projects — scored on seven weighted factors and graded S to D. This page is the whole dataset in aggregate: what the grades look like island-wide, how the districts rank, and which project characteristics actually move a score.

Scores as of September 2026. Free to reproduce with attribution — CC BY 4.0.

How the grades are distributed

Grades are percentile bands, so the shape is set by design rather than discovered. The target split is 10 / 20 / 40 / 20 / 10.

GradeProjectsShareTarget
S2189.2%10%
A48120.4%20%
B95640.6%40%
C48520.6%20%
D2179.2%10%

Actual shares sit a little off target on purpose: projects on an identical published score always take the same grade rather than being split across a band edge, and en-bloc and excluded projects are removed after the ranking is cut.

Leasehold outscores freehold — until you control for project size

Island-wide, leasehold projects average 6.47 against 5.79 for freehold and 999-year titles. 52.3% of leasehold projects earn an S or an A, against 22.8% of freehold ones.

That reads like a verdict on tenure. It is not. Freehold stock in Singapore is overwhelmingly small: a median of 42 units per project against 406 for leasehold, with 77.7% of freehold projects under 100 units against 12.2% of leasehold ones. Project size carries 16% of the score and tenure 10%.

Hold size constant and the result flips:

Project sizeFreeholdLeaseholdDifference
<100 units5.67(n=1,403)5.06(n=67)+0.62
100–299 units6.10(n=321)5.68(n=133)+0.42
300–599 units6.39(n=70)6.87(n=209)-0.48
600+ units7.06(n=12)7.27(n=142)not compared

A band is only differenced when both sides carry at least 20 projects. Freehold leads in the <100-unit and 100–299-unit bands, and trails in the 300–599-unit band. The island-wide gap is a composition effect: what looks like a tenure result is mostly a size result.

Bigger projects score higher

UnitsProjectsMean score
<1001,4705.65
100–2994545.98
300–5992796.75
600+1547.26

Part of this is the Project Size factor scoring size directly. The rest is that larger projects transact more often, which feeds the Historical Performance factor, and tend to sit on sites with the amenities the other factors reward.

Newer projects score higher

CompletedProjectsMean score
Before 19902625.55
1990s4735.67
2000s6635.90
2010s7626.21
2020 onwards1906.27

Covers the 2,350 of 2,357 projects with a recorded completion year.

Every district, ranked

Districts with at least 20 scored projects, best mean score first.

DistrictProjectsMeanS or A
D22Boon Lay, Jurong, Tuas227.3081.8%
D18Pasir Ris, Tampines446.9365.9%
D20Ang Mo Kio, Bishan, Thomson446.8063.6%
D27Sembawang, Yishun376.7362.2%
D13Macpherson, Potong Pasir446.6154.5%
D03Alexandra, Queenstown396.5753.8%
D19Hougang, Punggol, Sengkang1806.5152.8%
D23Bukit Batok, Bukit Panjang, Choa Chu Kang716.3943.7%
D21Clementi Park, Upper Bukit Timah746.3347.3%
D16Bedok, Upper East Coast686.2950.0%
D12Balestier, Toa Payoh1166.1328.4%
D14Eunos, Geylang, Paya Lebar2086.1038.0%
D08Farrer Park, Little India706.0930.0%
D15East Coast, Marine Parade4365.9428.7%
D11Newton, Novena1435.8315.4%
D09Orchard, River Valley2055.6110.7%
D05Buona Vista, Clementi, Pasir Panjang915.4422.0%
D17Changi, Loyang, Pasir Ris335.426.1%
D10Bukit Timah, Holland, Tanglin3085.224.2%
D04Harbourfront, Telok Blangah244.544.2%

Not ranked, too few projects to compare: D25 (14), D26 (14), D28 (17), D02 (19), D07 (19), D24 (1), D01 (14), D06 (2).

What separates the top districts from the bottom

Comparing the five highest-scoring districts (D22, D18, D20, D27, D13) against the five lowest (D09, D05, D17, D10, D04), factor by factor:

FactorTop fiveBottom fiveGap
Project Size6.964.30+2.66
Primary School Effect7.705.15+2.54
Project's Historical Performance6.794.53+2.25
Rental Yield5.273.29+1.98
Tenure8.109.59-1.48
Future Transformation3.303.88-0.58
MRT Proximity7.267.56-0.30

The top districts win on Project Size, Primary School Effect, Project's Historical Performance. The bottom five lead only on Tenure and Future Transformation and MRT Proximity — which is the shape of Singapore's prime districts: well connected and largely freehold, in small blocks, with weaker rental yields and school catchments.

What this measures, and what it does not

  • It is not a price ranking. A D-grade project in a prime district can cost multiples of an S-grade one in the suburbs. The score measures fundamentals associated with resale performance, not value, prestige or how pleasant somewhere is to live.
  • It is a project score, not a unit score. Floor, facing, layout, renovation and the specific price you negotiate are not in it, and they routinely matter more than the grade for a single transaction.
  • The bands are relative. Every project is graded against the others in this dataset, so a D is the bottom tenth of Singapore condos, not a failing building.
  • Thin evidence is still evidence. Projects that rarely transact carry a Historical Performance factor built on very few sales. Individual scorecards say so; an island-wide average cannot.

Cite this

Reproduce any figure on this page with attribution. Suggested form:

TRIBE Singapore Resale Condo Index, scores as of September 2026. https://tribesg.com/data/rps-index

Full scoring method, factor weights and worked example: how TRIBE scores and checks its analysis. Per-project scorecards: the Resale Project Scorecard. Monthly transaction data: Singapore condo resale market data.

Questions about the method, or a figure that looks wrong? Tell us and we will correct it.