This reading measures something narrow and checkable: whether a payment plan appears on the developer’s own project page at the moment the tracker reads it. Of the 51 published projects whose pages were read for a plan in 2026, 31 carry a payment plan on the page — a share of 61%.
The gap itself is the finding. A page that carries no plan shows that a plan is not published there, and nothing further. Across the four developers with enough published projects to compare, the distance between the highest and the lowest share of pages carrying a plan is 73 percentage points.
Key Findings
- A payment plan appears on 31 of the 51 published project pages, a share of 61%.
- Danube carries one on every published project page.
- Twenty of the 51 pages that give a starting price carry no payment plan.
- Across the four developers compared, the share of pages carrying a plan spans 73 percentage points.
- The tracker does not yet read payment plans from Emaar and Sobha’s pages, so those developers are not in these figures.
Figures compiled from publicly available developer information and the VIP Dubai Deal Score, as of 5 October 2026. How the Deal Score works.
4 Developers Ranked by Payment-Plan Disclosure
| Rank | Developer | Published projects | With a plan | Share | Stage split on record | Due at or after handover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Danube | 11 | 11 | 100% | 0 | — |
| 2 | Samana | 6 | 5 | 83% | 1 | 50% |
| 3 | DAMAC | 12 | 9 | 75% | 7 | 40% |
| 4 | Binghatti | 22 | 6 | 27% | 6 | 30% |
Developers with enough published projects to compare, ranked by the share of their project pages that carry a payment plan. "Stage split on record" counts plans the tracker could break into percentages by stage; "Due at or after handover" is the median share of the price left for handover and after, across those plans.
A developer can publish a payment plan without publishing its stage percentages: a plan given only as a monthly instalment counts under "With a plan" but has no stage split on record, so no share due at handover can be shown (—).
What Counts as a Published Payment Plan in This Reading
“Published” here has a single meaning: the payment plan appears on the developer’s own project page, in the tracker’s reading of that page. It is not a judgement about whether a plan exists, whether a plan is offered on request, or whether a plan is discussed in a sales conversation. The tracker holds no record of any of that.
The provenance rule behind the figure is the same rule that governs every field the publication prints: every fact behind a score is read from the developer’s own public website and carries the URL it came from. We do not use property portals, aggregators, or anything behind a login. Where a page carries no plan, the record stays empty rather than being filled in from elsewhere.
The scope is also narrower than the full tracker. Fifty-one published projects had their pages read for a payment plan; 48 published projects are not yet read for one. Emaar and Sobha fall outside these counts entirely, named rather than counted, because their plans are not yet among the pages read. Readers comparing live listings can see off-plan projects with payment plans as the tracker currently records them.
Who Puts a Plan on Every Page, and Who Sits in Between
At the top of the disclosure range, Danube carries one on every published project page. At the other end of the same comparison, no developer carries a plan on none of its published project pages. Between those positions sit Binghatti, DAMAC and Samana, each with some pages carrying a plan and some not.
The comparison covers four developers. Inclusion turns on a published-project threshold rather than on anything about the developer: a developer needs five published projects whose pages are read for a plan to appear at all. Within this reading, zero published projects come from developers below that threshold, so the grouped figures and the market-wide figures describe the same set of pages.
The 73 percentage points spread is the headline number for the comparison, and it is a spread between shares, not a ranking of practice. The tracker records what is on the page on the day it is read; it records nothing about why a page reads the way it does. Developer pages for Binghatti, DAMAC and Danube each hold the project-level detail behind their rows.
Where a Plan Appears but Its Stage Split Does Not
A plan’s stage split is the breakdown between what falls due during construction and what falls due at or after handover. The tracker records a split only where the plan is published in a form it can read, and the published methodology is explicit about the limit: only plans published as explicit percentages can be scored.
Danube carries a payment plan on 11 of its published project pages, and the tracker could read a stage split on zero of those plans. Danube’s published projects in this reading include OCEANZ in Dubai Maritime City.
DAMAC carries a plan on nine published project pages, and a stage split could be read on seven of them. DAMAC’s set includes CANAL HEIGHTS 2 de GRISOGONO in Business Bay.
Samana carries a plan on five published project pages, with a stage split read on one. Both counts are reported as they stand; the tracker holds no record of what sits behind the difference between them.
The Median Share Due at or After Handover, Where It Could Be Read
Where a stage split could be read, the tracker records the share of the plan falling due at or after handover and reports a median for each developer. For Binghatti that median reads 30%; for DAMAC it reads 40%.
The Samana median reads 50%, resting on the one plan whose split the tracker could read. A median drawn from a thin record describes that record and no more.
For Danube the field reads not available — no plan on these pages had a stage split the tracker could read. That is an absence of readable structure on the page, not an absence of plans: the same developer carries a plan on every published project page in this reading. The figures here describe what was published and legible, and the guide to how off-plan payment plans work sets out the mechanics the percentages refer to.
Starting Prices, Handover Quarters and the Fields Published Alongside a Plan
Published project pages carry other dated fields beside the payment plan. Among the 51 published projects in this reading, 51 carry a starting price and 20 carry a handover quarter.
By developer, the handover quarter appears on three Binghatti pages, nine DAMAC pages, eight Danube pages and zero Samana pages. Samana’s published set in the tracker includes SAMANA Barari Lagoons in Majan. Those counts describe the handover field alone; the payment-plan counts above are reported separately.
What a Page Without a Payment Plan Does Not Prove
The single most important limit on this reading is also the easiest to overstate. A published project page with no payment plan shows that the plan is not published there. It does not show that the developer has no plan, that no plan is available, or that the terms differ from those published elsewhere in the market. The tracker holds no record of plans offered away from the developer’s own page, so no claim can be made about how often that happens.
The published methodology treats silence as silence rather than as a value: where a developer publishes nothing on a subject, we record nothing — and the score reflects that absence rather than papering over it. That is why unread developers are named instead of scored at nothing, and why a missing stage split is reported as unavailable rather than filled in.
For readers working through what a published plan actually sets out — instalment stages, construction-linked tranches, and what “at or after handover” covers — the guide to how off-plan payment plans work is the reference page for the mechanics. This post measures disclosure, not terms, and makes no assessment of whether any published plan suits any reader.
How a Published Plan Enters the Deal Score
Payment-plan disclosure is not only a transparency question; it is an input. The methodology sets out what the zero-to-one-hundred figure is and what it is not: a Deal Score is a 0–100 read on how one off-plan project compares with the others we track — above all, with the other projects in its own community. It is not a prediction and it is not advice.
The payment pillar reads published structure rather than marketing language. As the methodology puts it: a plan advertised as “1% monthly” is shown as the developer wrote it and left unscored — we do not guess a structure out of prose. A plan that is published, but published in prose, is shown as written.
Scores move only when the underlying published record moves. Among the listed triggers: a score changes when, and only when, one of its inputs changes: the developer publishes, or changes, a payment plan or handover date. The full weighting, the confidence tiers and the stated weakness of each pillar are set out in how the Deal Score works.
