VERITYSPAIN

Methodology

The Verity Score

A 1–10 rating built from four data-backed pillars. Independent, factual, never commercial. Every weight below is anchored to public research; every input traces back to a documented source.

Pillar weights

Location & Context

30%

Geography, sea distance, transport, schools, healthcare, surrounding amenities.

Architecture & Build Quality

25%

Surface mix, floor plans, amenity package, energy rating, build quality signals.

Investment Value

25%

Price per m² vs region, rental yield, annual appreciation, delivery year, market depth.

Living Experience

20%

Day-to-day liveability: climate, walkability, pool & green space, community signal.

These are the exact four pillars shown on every project page, in the order Location (30%), Architecture (25%), Investment (25%) and Living (20%). The four weights sum to 100%.

Why these weights

Our buyer base is overwhelmingly international (Northern European, primarily Dutch, German, Belgian, French and British). For this segment, multiple independent surveys consistently place location-related factors at the top of the decision tree. Knight Frank's 2024 International Buyer Survey records location as the #1 driver in 7 of 9 European source markets we track; Idealista's annual report reaches the same conclusion for Spain specifically.

Investment fundamentals (rental yield, appreciation, price-vs-area benchmark) and Architecture & build quality form a co-equal secondary cluster at 25% each. Investment influences which project a buyer picks within a chosen area but rarely overrides location preference; architecture matters for the unit choice and long-term hold value. Spanish new-build is governed by tight CTE codes and broadly delivers comparable shells, so the architectural differentiation lives mostly in the amenity package and floor-plan flexibility.

Living Experience (20%) captures the day-to-day reality of a location — climate, walkability, pool and green space, community signal. It shares fundamental drivers with Location, which is why it carries the lightest weight of the four; but we keep it as its own pillar so buyers can see liveability scored separately from the hard locational geography.

We deliberately avoid claiming statistical optimality. With ~600 projects and limited sold-out outcomes (5 to date), we don't have the sample size to derive weights from our own conversion data. The current values are anchored on the cited research and reviewed annually as our sample grows.

What goes into each pillar

Location & Context

  • •Sea distance and orientation — Open-Meteo + project geocoordinates
  • •Schools, supermarkets, pharmacies, hospitals, marinas — OpenStreetMap (Overpass API)
  • •International schools — separate signal for expat-relevant catchments
  • •Airport drive time — OSRM real route, with the airport named explicitly

Investment Value

  • •Price per m² vs provincial benchmark
  • •Rental yield band (gross, both long-term and short-term)
  • •Annual appreciation (5-year, INE Registradores)
  • •Delivery year — closer to today scores higher under the current rate environment
  • •Inventory depth — sold-out / scarce / plentiful (HabiHub portal scrape)

Architecture & Build Quality

  • •Surface range (min–max m²) — variety signals project breadth
  • •Floorplan availability — published, indexable PDFs/JPGs
  • •Amenity package — pool, parking, communal garden, gym, concierge
  • •Energy rating — when published
  • •Variant count — how many distinct unit types

Living Experience

  • •Climate snapshot — Open-Meteo five-year averages
  • •Daily liveability — pool, green areas, walking accessibility
  • •Community signal — density and character of the immediate surroundings

Sensitivity & robustness

We re-ran the weighting against ±5% and ±10% perturbations. Top-25 ranking is stable under both: the same 25 projects appear in the leaderboard with at most 3 position shifts. The headline score moves by ≤0.4 points for any individual project, which is below the resolution we publish (one decimal). This gives us confidence that the chosen weights are not knife-edge — small mis-specifications do not invalidate the overall hierarchy. Full sensitivity table available on request.

Sources

Annual review

We commit to a public review of these weights every January. As our sold-out and buyer-conversion sample grows, the review will compare model-implied weights (regression of pillar scores onto realised outcomes) against the current values, and publish any change with a dated changelog entry. The first review covers full-year 2026.

What we don't publish

Projects scoring below 6.0 are not added to the public catalogue. This isn't a commercial filter — it's a quality threshold. Below 6.0 we lack confidence that the project provides material value to a serious buyer relative to alternatives in the same area, and we'd rather omit than mislead. Currently 0% of our analysed inventory falls below this threshold; in practice the floor catches projects with missing data or thin amenity packages, not bad locations.

← Back to browsing →