Leasehold vs freehold: which held value better?
“Freehold always holds its value” is the oldest rule in Singapore property. We put it to the test on the numbers. Taking every private condo completed at least five years ago (TOP 2021 or earlier) with enough resale caveats to measure a trend — 1,209 projects — we compared the 5-year resale $psf growth of freehold / 999-yr projects against 99-year leasehold, split by market region and controlled for location, size and age. Source: URA Data Service.
Over the last five years, leasehold quietly kept pace with freehold — and beat it in the suburbs. On matched pairs (same district, similar size and age), 99-yr leasehold appreciated on resale $psf about as fast as freehold in the prime core and city fringe, and faster in the OCR suburbs. The extra you pay for freehold did not buy faster growth in this window.
- CCR (prime): freehold 3.2%/yr vs leasehold 2.0%/yr — the one region freehold held value better, but the matched-pair gap is only dead heat.
- RCR (city fringe): freehold 5.2% vs leasehold 5.7% — effectively a leasehold +0.3pp.
- OCR (suburbs): leasehold 7.3% beat freehold 5.8% — matched pairs favour leasehold +1.8pp.
- You still pay up for freehold: ~+16% (CCR) and ~+16% (OCR) more per sq ft to buy it — a premium that didn’t translate into faster 5-yr appreciation.
The five-year verdict: a dead heat, tilting to leasehold outside the core
Across all 196 matched freehold–leasehold pairs, the median difference in 5-year resale $psf growth was -0.8 percentage points a year in favour of leasehold — small enough to call a tie overall, but clearly leasehold-favouring in the suburbs. Freehold’s real edge — no lease decay, en-bloc land value, holding in perpetuity — is a long-hold and lease-tail story that a recent 5-year window, in a rising mass-market, simply doesn’t capture.
Matched-pair gap = median (freehold minus leasehold) 5-yr resale $psf CAGR, pairing each freehold project with a leasehold one in the same district of similar size and vintage. A positive value favours freehold; negative favours leasehold.
The 5-year scorecard, by region
Median 5-year resale $psf growth (per year) for each tenure, in each URA market region. If freehold reliably “held value better,” the dark bars would sit clearly above the amber ones. They don’t — the two are close everywhere, and leasehold is ahead in the suburbs.
Region by region
| Metric | CCR FH | CCR LH | RCR FH | RCR LH | OCR FH | OCR LH |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5-yr resale $psf CAGR | 3.2% | 2.0% | 5.2% | 5.7% | 5.8% | 7.3% |
| Current median $psf | $2,225 | $1,918 | $1,668 | $1,726 | $1,554 | $1,345 |
| Qualifying projects | 281 | 68 | 357 | 112 | 150 | 241 |
Current $psf = median of resale caveats in the last ~2 years. Note the freehold price premium: buying freehold costs about +16% more per sq ft in the CCR and +16% in the OCR — yet that premium bought no extra 5-yr growth. In the RCR, freehold and leasehold $psf are almost level, partly because the leasehold set there includes many big, recently-completed launches.
Controlling for location, size & age
Region medians can be skewed by where each tenure clusters — freehold dominates some enclaves, leasehold others. The cleaner test is a matched pair: take a freehold project and the most similar leasehold project in the same district, of similar size and vintage, and compare their 5-year growth directly. That removes the location, size and age confounders so the remaining gap is closer to a pure tenure effect.
Median (freehold − leasehold) 5-yr resale $psf CAGR within matched pairs. Positive = freehold grew faster. The matched result confirms the region medians: a near dead heat in the prime core and city fringe, and a clear 1.8pp/yr edge to leasehold in the suburbs.
The projects behind the numbers
Five freehold and five leasehold projects in each region — the most-traded qualifying names, so the $psf and CAGR are well-supported. These are illustrative examples of each cohort, not the whole sample.
Core Central Region (CCR) — the prime core
D1/2/4/6/9/10/11. Freehold edges ahead here (3.2% vs 2.0%/yr) — the one region where the tenure premium partly earned its keep.
| Project | Dist | Units | TOP | $psf | 5-yr CAGR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rv Residences | D10 | 248 | 2015 | $2,332 | +2.7% |
| Valley Park | D10 | 728 | 1997 | $2,187 | +3.2% |
| Nouvel 18 | D10 | 156 | 2014 | $3,029 | -0.0% |
| Spottiswoode Residences | D2 | 351 | 2013 | $2,289 | +2.8% |
| Skyline Residences | D4 | 283 | 2015 | $2,202 | +1.9% |
| Project | Dist | Units | TOP | $psf | 5-yr CAGR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D'Leedon | D10 | 1,703 | 2014 | $2,044 | +4.5% |
| Reflections At Keppel Bay | D4 | 1,129 | 2011 | $1,722 | +0.9% |
| The Sail @ Marina Bay | D1 | 1,111 | 2008 | $2,026 | +2.3% |
| The Interlace | D4 | 1,040 | 2013 | $1,682 | +5.4% |
| Marina One Residences | D1 | 1,042 | 2017 | $1,993 | -5.2% |
Rest of Central Region (RCR) — the city fringe
D3/5/7/8/12/13/14/15/20. Essentially level (5.2% vs 5.7%/yr).
| Project | Dist | Units | TOP | $psf | 5-yr CAGR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Flamingo Valley | D15 | 393 | 2014 | $1,825 | +3.7% |
| Vacanza @ East | D14 | 473 | 2014 | $1,535 | +5.8% |
| City Square Residences | D8 | 910 | 2009 | $2,077 | +3.9% |
| The Waterside | D15 | 502 | 1992 | $2,198 | +5.4% |
| One Amber | D15 | 562 | 2010 | $2,276 | +6.3% |
| Project | Dist | Units | TOP | $psf | 5-yr CAGR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sims Urban Oasis | D14 | 1,024 | 2017 | $1,903 | +4.9% |
| Parc Riviera | D5 | 752 | 2019 | $1,689 | +4.8% |
| Eight Riversuites | D12 | 843 | 2016 | $1,858 | +5.6% |
| Commonwealth Towers | D3 | 845 | 2017 | $2,217 | +4.4% |
| The Trilinq | D5 | 755 | 2017 | $1,801 | +4.5% |
Outside Central Region (OCR) — the suburbs
The mass-market heartland. Leasehold led (7.3% vs 5.8%/yr) — newer 99-yr launches appreciating off a lower base.
| Project | Dist | Units | TOP | $psf | 5-yr CAGR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ferraria Park Condominium | D17 | 472 | 2009 | $1,240 | +6.0% |
| Edelweiss Park Condominium | D17 | 517 | 2006 | $1,118 | +5.2% |
| Signature Park | D21 | 928 | 1998 | $1,711 | +4.4% |
| The Cascadia | D21 | 536 | 2010 | $2,232 | +4.4% |
| Carissa Park Condominium | D17 | 528 | 2001 | $1,200 | +6.7% |
| Project | Dist | Units | TOP | $psf | 5-yr CAGR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sol Acres | D23 | 1,327 | 2018 | $1,470 | +7.7% |
| High Park Residences | D28 | 1,376 | 2019 | $1,622 | +5.8% |
| Kingsford Waterbay | D19 | 1,157 | 2018 | $1,455 | +3.8% |
| The Topiary | D28 | 700 | 2016 | $1,465 | +8.9% |
| The Minton | D19 | 1,145 | 2013 | $1,517 | +8.1% |
Investor verdict
Over a recent 5-year hold, tenure was not the deciding factor in how fast your $psf grew. Matched like-for-like, freehold and 99-yr leasehold moved together in the CCR and RCR, and leasehold actually out-grew freehold in the OCR by ~1.8pp a year. If your holding period is short and you’re buying a younger leasehold, the “freehold holds value better” rule did not hold in this window.
But read the caveats before concluding freehold is overrated. Five years is a short window, and it coincided with a mass-market surge that flattered newer suburban leasehold off a low base. Lease decay barely bites a 99-yr project in its first two decades — the freehold advantage shows up later, once a leasehold’s remaining tenure falls toward 60 years and bank LTV / CPF rules tighten its future buyer pool, and it shows up as en-bloc land value and the ability to hold in perpetuity. This study can’t see those; it measures the near term only.
So how to use it: if you’re buying to hold 5–10 years and sell while the leasehold is still young, a well-located newer 99-yr project — bought ~16% cheaper per sq ft — is a perfectly rational, and lately better-performing, choice. Pay the freehold premium when you’re buying for the very long term, for a legacy / en-bloc play, or in the prime core, where scarcity is real and freehold’s edge is most defensible.
How is this worked out? — region map, filters, CAGR & matching
See also: Project sizing — does unit count move $psf? › · Amber Road freehold ›