Singapore vs Hong Kong REITs: Side-by-Side Metrics Across Yield, Structure, and Market Breadth

Opening Context

Singapore and Hong Kong sit next to each other in the regional income conversation, yet the numbers do not line up as neatly as the labels suggest. Singapore’s REIT universe counts 30 names, while Hong Kong’s totals 8. At the same time, Hong Kong’s REIT average yield stands at 5.635, above Singapore’s 4.469. That split alone explains why a side-by-side read matters: one market is broader, the other shows a higher REIT yield average, and neither fact tells the whole story by itself.

The broader income screens also place these markets close together. In the real-yield rankings, Singapore is ranked 5 with an average real yield of 2.966 across 32 stocks, while Hong Kong is ranked 6 with an average real yield of 2.566 across 33 stocks. Real yield measures nominal dividend yield after subtracting local inflation, making it a useful way to compare income markets that operate under different price environments. Inflation in Singapore is 2.389, compared with 1.73 in Hong Kong, so the same nominal yield does not translate into the same inflation-adjusted outcome.

This article focuses on a factual comparison of listed income metrics, REIT composition, and structural context. It uses the latest snapshots dated 2026-05-03 for both real-yield and REIT datasets. Readers looking for deeper market-specific pages can also review Singapore REIT data and Hong Kong REIT data. The scope here is narrow by design: listed yield statistics, REIT market structure, sector mix, exchange context, and observable anomalies embedded in the dataset.

Both Markets Overview

Singapore’s market snapshot in this dataset is anchored by the Straits Times Index, which stands at 4912.69 with a daily change of 1.06. The dividend universe covered for Singapore includes 32 stocks, and the exchange-level profile leans heavily toward yield-bearing real estate vehicles. Sector counts make that clear: REITs account for 21 covered names, while Finance contributes 3 and Conglomerate 2. Transport, Industrial, Agriculture, Utilities, Real Estate, and Telecom each appear with 1 name. In other words, Singapore’s covered income set is concentrated, and the concentration sits squarely in REITs.

Hong Kong’s corresponding benchmark is the Hang Seng Index at 25776.53 with a daily change of -1.28. Coverage spans 33 stocks, one more than Singapore, but the structure is less concentrated. REITs still lead with 7 names, yet Finance follows closely with 6, and Real Estate plus Technology each contribute 4. Utilities and Energy add 3 each, Telecom and Insurance 2 each, while Transport and Conglomerate contribute 1 apiece. The result is a broader sector spread inside the covered income screen.

That difference in breadth matters when comparing averages. Singapore’s country-level average nominal yield is 5.426, ahead of Hong Kong’s 4.34, producing a nominal yield gap of 1.086. After inflation, the average real yield gap narrows to 0.4 because Singapore’s inflation rate is higher by 0.659. REIT market size is where the divergence becomes most visible: 30 REITs in Singapore versus 8 in Hong Kong, a difference of 22. Aristocrat count adds another contrast. In this dataset, Singapore has 1 REIT aristocrat and Hong Kong has 0.

A REIT aristocrat in Finance Pulse Research terms refers to a REIT flagged for sustained distribution continuity and growth characteristics within the database classification; the status is binary rather than a scored scale. Separately, NAV premium/discount measures how far a REIT trades above or below reported net asset value, expressed as a percentage, where negative values indicate discounts and positive values indicate premiums.

Beyond the headline numbers, the exchange profile also hints at how the two markets package income exposure differently. Singapore’s covered list looks like an income market with a REIT core. Hong Kong’s covered list looks more mixed, combining REITs with banks, utilities, telecom, and energy names. That distinction becomes clearer in the yield distribution data.

Real Yield Comparison

Singapore’s average real yield is 2.966, while Hong Kong posts 2.566. Real yield, again, adjusts the listed nominal dividend yield by local inflation, so it captures the income left after domestic price growth. On a central-tendency basis, Singapore also leads on the median at 3.228 versus Hong Kong’s 2.595. The averages therefore point in the same direction, but the spread and tails tell a more layered story.

Singapore’s distribution stats show 32 observations, with the 25th percentile at 1.505 and the 75th percentile at 3.995. Standard deviation is 1.481, the minimum is 0.45, and the maximum is 6.612. Hong Kong’s 33-stock set has a 25th percentile of 1.406 and a 75th percentile of 3.854, with a larger standard deviation of 2.193. Its minimum falls to -1.7 and its maximum reaches 6.105. The pattern suggests Singapore’s covered income set is somewhat tighter around the middle, while Hong Kong shows a wider spread that includes both deeper low-end outcomes and high-yield leaders near the top end.

Zooming into the individual entries, the top five Singapore names by real yield are all REITs. Sasseur REIT leads at a nominal yield of 9.16 and a real yield of 6.612. Sabana Industrial REIT follows at 7.63 nominal and 5.118 real. CapitaLand Ascendas REIT posts 7.53 nominal and 5.021 real. ARA Hospitality Trust records 7.3 nominal and 4.796 real, and IREIT Global adds 6.92 nominal with 4.425 real. That top tier underscores how central REITs are to Singapore’s inflation-adjusted income profile.

Hong Kong’s top five are more mixed. Yuexiu REIT stands first with a nominal yield of 7.94 and a real yield of 6.105, narrowly followed by Prosperity REIT at 7.93 nominal and 6.095 real. Sunlight REIT ranks next at 7.81 nominal and 5.977 real. China Merchants Bank then appears with 7.02 nominal and 5.2 real, followed by CLP Holdings at 6.98 nominal and 5.161 real. So while Hong Kong’s top three are REITs, the upper end broadens quickly into Finance and Utilities rather than remaining entirely inside property trusts.

The data shifts when viewed through the median-versus-mean lens. In Singapore, the median real yield of 3.228 sits above the mean of 2.966, which can indicate a lower tail pulling the average down. In Hong Kong, the median of 2.595 sits only slightly above the mean of 2.566, but the much larger standard deviation of 2.193 and the negative minimum of -1.7 point to wider dispersion. One practical reading of the numbers is that Singapore offers a denser cluster of moderate positive real yields, whereas Hong Kong combines strong top entries with a broader range of outcomes.

For readers exploring market-specific rankings, the country pages for Singapore REIT screens and Hong Kong REIT screens complement this comparison by isolating each domestic listed trust universe.

REIT Market Comparison

Singapore’s REIT market in this dataset contains 30 names, compared with 8 in Hong Kong. The difference is not marginal. It changes how readers interpret averages, concentration, and outliers. Singapore also has 1 aristocrat, identified here as Cromwell European REIT, while Hong Kong has no REIT aristocrats in the current screen.

On yield, Hong Kong’s average REIT yield is 5.635, ahead of Singapore’s 4.469. Yet the asset-value picture diverges sharply. Singapore’s average NAV premium/discount is 1.952, which places the aggregate close to asset value and slightly on the premium side. Hong Kong’s average NAV premium/discount is -65.403, indicating a far deeper discount pattern across its smaller REIT set.

That pattern breaks down when anomalies are inspected one by one. Singapore includes ARA Hospitality Trust with a NAV premium/discount of 309.09, explicitly flagged with an anomaly note stating that the extreme NAV premium may reflect stale NAV data, illiquid market conditions, or structural factors. The Singapore list also includes IREIT Global at -53.1, Parkway Life REIT at 57.09, and Manulife US REIT at -65.14, each of the extreme values flagged or notable in context. These figures require caution rather than face-value interpretation.

Hong Kong’s NAV discount pattern is even more extreme and repeatedly annotated. Yuexiu REIT sits at -76.59, Prosperity REIT at -63.76, Sunlight REIT at -67.16, Fortune REIT at -60.23, Champion REIT at -63.9, and Regal REIT at -90.25. Each of those deep discounts carries anomaly language in the dataset, noting possible stale NAV data, illiquid trading, or structural factors. Link REIT is less extreme at -35.93 and carries a Distribution Safety Score of 25.

A Distribution Safety Score is a 0-100 scale where higher values indicate stronger payout coverage characteristics in the Finance Pulse Research model. In this comparison set, the score range actually used is 0 or 25, so it functions more as a coarse safety flag than a finely graduated ranking.

Switching from yield to durability metrics reveals another contrast. Singapore’s only aristocrat, Cromwell European REIT, combines 14 years of continuous distributions with 14.95 distribution growth over five years, though its safety score is 0 and its NAV premium/discount is -34.66. Hong Kong, by contrast, records no aristocrats at all in the current REIT set.

Sector Mix Differences

Singapore’s sector composition starts with one overwhelming fact: REITs account for 21 of the 32 covered dividend stocks. Their average nominal yield is 6.199 and their average real yield is 3.721, comfortably above Finance at 4.333 nominal and 1.899 real, and above Conglomerate at 3.295 nominal and 0.885 real. The remaining sectors are mostly single-name categories. Transport posts 5.56 nominal and 3.097 real, Industrial 4.64 nominal and 2.198 real, Agriculture 3.88 nominal and 1.456 real, Utilities 3.76 nominal and 1.339 real, Real Estate 3.17 nominal and 0.762 real, and Telecom 2.85 nominal with 0.45 real. This is not just a REIT-heavy market. It is a market where REITs dominate both count and average yield.

A different pattern emerges when Hong Kong’s sector table is lined up beside it. REITs still lead on average nominal yield at 6.44 and average real yield at 4.63, but they only account for 7 names. Finance brings 6 names with 4.875 nominal and 3.092 real, Utilities adds 3 names with 5.397 nominal and 3.604 real, and Telecom contributes 2 names with 5.045 nominal and 3.259 real. Energy also stays relevant at 3 names with 4.527 nominal and 2.75 real. The income base is therefore broader across sectors than in Singapore.

The picture changes at the sector level when lower-yield segments are included. Hong Kong’s Technology group has 4 names but averages just 0.487 nominal and -1.221 real, making it the only sector in either country with a negative average real yield in the provided tables. Singapore has no comparable Technology segment in the coverage list. Meanwhile, Hong Kong Real Estate, separate from REITs, averages 3.13 nominal and 1.376 real across 4 names, while Singapore Real Estate appears with only 1 name at 3.17 nominal and 0.762 real.

Cross-referencing with sector breadth reveals a useful distinction. Singapore offers stronger sector concentration in high-yield REITs. Hong Kong offers more sector diversification among income-generating names, with Finance, Utilities, Telecom, and Energy all carrying real yields above 2.75. Readers comparing country pages can use Singapore REIT breakdowns for a deeper trust-heavy lens and Hong Kong REIT breakdowns for a smaller but more deeply discounted trust set.

Structural and Regulatory Context

The structural comparison starts with currency and index context. Singapore’s data is denominated in SGD and tied here to the Straits Times Index, while Hong Kong’s uses HKD and the Hang Seng Index. Currency differences matter because nominal yields and inflation rates are local, and the real-yield calculation uses those local inflation rates directly: 2.389 in Singapore and 1.73 in Hong Kong.

Stepping back to the aggregate level, market access and listing structure differ in ways only partly visible in the numbers. Singapore’s covered universe skews toward dedicated income vehicles listed in a market where REITs form the dominant dividend cohort in this dataset. Hong Kong’s dataset includes fewer REITs and a larger role for banks, utilities, telecom operators, and energy firms within the income screen. That means cross-border readers are often comparing not just two REIT markets, but two different listed-income ecosystems.

Tax treatment differences affecting dividends are not quantified in the supplied data, so detailed rate comparisons are not yet covered. Likewise, listing-rule specifics are data not available in the provided block. What the dataset does show is that Hong Kong foreign-flow coverage is status "no_data" on 2026-05-03, with a data tier labeled "turnover-only" and foreign net local not available. Singapore flow data is null. As a result, this article does not extend into cross-border net flow interpretation.

Viewed through a market-structure lens, Singapore’s REIT concentration and Hong Kong’s multi-sector yield base can be treated as two distinct forms of listed income exposure rather than simple substitutes.

Analytical Observations

The data reveals three notable trade-offs. First, Singapore holds a broader REIT shelf with 30 names and a higher country-level average real yield of 2.966, yet Hong Kong records the higher average REIT yield at 5.635. Second, Singapore’s median real yield of 3.228 exceeds Hong Kong’s 2.595, while Hong Kong’s wider standard deviation of 2.193 points to more dispersion across covered names. Third, valuation patterns diverge sharply: Singapore’s average REIT NAV premium/discount is 1.952, but Hong Kong’s is -65.403.

Notably, extreme values appear in both markets and require explicit caution. Singapore includes anomaly-tagged NAV readings such as 309.09 for ARA Hospitality Trust and -65.14 for Manulife US REIT. Hong Kong includes multiple anomaly-tagged deep discounts, including -90.25 for Regal REIT and -76.59 for Yuexiu REIT. Metrics suggest these figures may reflect stale NAV data, illiquid trading, or structural factors, exactly as the dataset notes.

Taken together, the comparison shows a larger and more REIT-centered Singapore income set alongside a smaller Hong Kong REIT universe that trades at materially deeper reported discounts and sits within a more diversified sector backdrop.

Data Sources and Methodology

This comparison uses Finance Pulse Research country snapshots for Singapore and Hong Kong, both dated 2026-05-03 for real-yield and REIT data freshness. Country-level real yield is calculated from average nominal yield and local inflation, while distribution statistics describe the spread of covered stock-level real yields. REIT-specific metrics include current yield, five-year average yield, NAV premium/discount, years of continuous distributions, five-year distribution growth, aristocrat status, and Distribution Safety Score.

Where the dataset marks anomalies with fields such as _anomaly_nav or _anomaly_growth, this article explicitly acknowledges them instead of treating those values as plain comparables. Missing fields are labeled data not available or not yet covered. For additional country pages, methodology-adjacent screening views are available through Singapore REIT data and Hong Kong REIT data.

This analysis is based on publicly available market data and derived metrics calculated by Finance Pulse Research. Finance Pulse Research is a data analytics publisher. Content is for informational and educational purposes only. Nothing herein constitutes investment advice, a recommendation to buy or sell any security, or an offer of any kind. Data as of 2026-05-03.

Related Analyses

Readers comparing regional property-income markets can continue with Singapore REIT country coverage and Hong Kong REIT country coverage. For quick cross-checks during market screening, those pages provide the most direct follow-on views from this side-by-side comparison. They are useful companions when moving from country aggregates to individual trust-level metrics and anomaly flags across the two markets.