DLD live · 04 May 2026DLD live
DOWNTOWN+3.4%PALM JUMEIRAH+2.1%JVC−0.6%DUBAI HILLS+4.8%BUSINESS BAY+1.2%DUBAI MARINA−0.3%MBR CITY+5.7%JLT+0.9%EMAAR BEACHFRONT+2.7%DAMAC HILLS 2−1.1%CITY WALK+2.0%MEYDAN+3.3%
DOWNTOWN+3.4%PALM JUMEIRAH+2.1%JVC−0.6%DUBAI HILLS+4.8%BUSINESS BAY+1.2%DUBAI MARINA−0.3%MBR CITY+5.7%JLT+0.9%EMAAR BEACHFRONT+2.7%DAMAC HILLS 2−1.1%CITY WALK+2.0%MEYDAN+3.3%
WealthIQ
Sign inRequest access
Methodology · Published Q2 2026

How we score
ninety-seven Dubai developers.

Four factors, equally weighted, recomputed quarterly from Dubai Land Department records. Editorial influence on the score: zero. The methodology is published so anyone can audit it.

Data sources

DLD Transaction Registry

Public record of every property transaction in Dubai, updated hourly. Primary source for completion rates and handover dates.

RERA Escrow Database

Escrow account status for every registered off-plan project. Source for escrow flags and milestone compliance.

Developer Announcements

Weekly reconciliation of press releases, launch events, and DLD filings to track announced vs. delivered projects.

Court Records

Public litigation records filtered for delivery-related disputes. Only cases directly tied to project handover are counted.

The four factors

Each factor carries equal weight. No exceptions.

0125%

Completion rate

Percentage of announced projects that reached handover. A developer who announced 88 towers and delivered 74 scores 84.1% on this factor.

Emaar: 218 / 224 = 97.3% · Azizi: 38 / 78 = 48.7%
0225%

Average handover delay

Mean calendar days between the originally announced handover date and the actual handover, measured across all completed projects. Negative values (early delivery) are possible.

Emaar: +9 days avg · DAMAC: +78 days avg · Azizi: +182 days avg
0325%

Escrow flags

Count of DLD escrow irregularities on file — late milestone releases, fund discrepancies, or escrow account issues reported by the Dubai Land Department.

Emaar: 0 flags · Danube: 3 flags · Tiger Properties: 11 flags
0425%

Litigation history

Active or resolved legal disputes directly related to project delivery, sourced from public court records and DLD filings. Only delivery-related litigation is counted.

Sobha: 1 case (resolved) · Ellington: 4 cases · Azizi: 9 cases
Grade scale

From A+ to D — what each tier means.

GradeScore rangeDescription
A+90–100Exceptional. Near-perfect delivery record with minimal delays.
A80–89Strong. Reliable delivery with occasional minor delays.
A−75–79Good. Solid record with some flags to note.
B+65–74Above average. Noticeable delays or flags in history.
B55–64Average. Material delays and multiple flags.
B−45–54Below average. Significant concern on multiple factors.
C+35–44Poor. Substantial delivery failures and/or litigation.
C25–34Very poor. Majority of projects delayed or undelivered.
D0–24Critical. Most projects failed, cancelled, or litigated.
Update cadence

Scores are recomputed every quarter.

Each quarterly update pulls the latest DLD transaction data, escrow status, and court filings. Historical scores are preserved — you can track how a developer's reliability has changed over time.

Principles
  1. 01No developer can pay to change their score.
  2. 02No editorial judgment overrides the data.
  3. 03The formula is published; anyone can audit it.
  4. 04Scores are versioned — history is never erased.