Development toolsDevelopment Options Comparator

Development Options Comparator

Compare real strategic alternatives on value creation, capital exposure, delivery period and risk—then document why one option is preferred.

Local save not yet confirmed

Input guidance and saving

Financial values are in millions of the selected currency. NPV and IRR are supplied by you; this comparator does not calculate them from cash flows. Scores are relative to the entered options and weights must total 100%.

First visits open with illustrative example inputs. Replace these with your own evidence before relying on the outputs.

Inputs are stored in this browser, not in an account. They will not follow you to another device and can be lost when browser data is cleared. Uploaded images use separate local storage.

Review the report preview after changing inputs. Reports with outstanding checks remain drafts.

Relative option scores

Lower-Density Premium74.9 / 100

Residential-Led53.9 / 100

Base Masterplan15.5 / 100

1. Decision basis

Define the project and the relative importance of each decision metric.

Values in millions

Project / decision

Decision question

CurrencyAll financial inputs are in millions of the selected currency.

NPV	IRR	Margin	Peak funding	Duration	Risk
% weight	% weight	% weight	% weight	% weight	% weight

Report readiness: Ready to issue

All options, decision weights and assumptions are ready for the report.

2. Alternative development strategies

Use comparable assumptions across options. Risk is scored from 1 (low) to 5 (high).

Base Masterplan

Option name

Strategy summary

GFA / BUA (m²)

Duration (months)

GDV

Development cost

Land cost

Finance cost

Peak funding

NPV

IRR %

Planning risk 1–5

Market risk 1–5

Delivery risk 1–5

Capital risk 1–5

Upload masterplan

Residential-Led

Option name

Strategy summary

GFA / BUA (m²)

Duration (months)

GDV

Development cost

Land cost

Finance cost

Peak funding

NPV

IRR %

Planning risk 1–5

Market risk 1–5

Delivery risk 1–5

Capital risk 1–5

Upload masterplan

Lower-Density Premium

Option name

Strategy summary

GFA / BUA (m²)

Duration (months)

GDV

Development cost

Land cost

Finance cost

Peak funding

NPV

IRR %

Planning risk 1–5

Market risk 1–5

Delivery risk 1–5

Capital risk 1–5

Upload masterplan

3. Comparative scorecard

Scores are relative to the options entered; they are not absolute feasibility ratings.

100 = strongest

Rank	Option	GFA	NPV	IRR	Margin	Peak funding	Duration	Risk	Score
1	Lower-Density Premium Reduced density · premium coastal product	132,000	1,020	21.1%	19.6%	2,450	42 mo.	1.8/5	75
2	Residential-Led Higher residential allocation · two phases	168,000	1,175	20.4%	21.7%	2,950	54 mo.	3.0/5	54
3	Base Masterplan Balanced mixed-use · single phase	155,000	910	18.8%	18.7%	2,800	48 mo.	2.5/5	16

4. Investment committee view

Financial return is considered together with capital exposure and execution risk.

#1 · Lower-Density Premium75 / 100NPV 1,020 · IRR 21.1% · risk 1.8/5

#2 · Residential-Led54 / 100NPV 1,175 · IRR 20.4% · risk 3.0/5

#3 · Base Masterplan16 / 100NPV 910 · IRR 18.8% · risk 2.5/5

Use the score as a decision aid, not as an automatic answer.

Confirm that all options use the same valuation date, currency, cost inclusions, land basis, finance assumptions and return definitions. Document any strategic benefit that is not captured numerically.

Development Assistant SuiteDevelopment, valuation and decision tools

Development Options Assessment

Coastal Development Options

Strategic Alternative Comparison

Recommended option: Lower-Density Premium

3 alternativesRisk-adjusted decision frameworkEGP millions

Coastal Development OptionsDevelopment Options Assessment

Executive recommendation

Preferred Development Strategy

The recommendation combines value creation, return, capital exposure, delivery duration and execution risk using the entered decision weights.

Report readiness: Ready to issue

All options, decision weights and assumptions are ready for the report.

Recommended optionLower-Density PremiumWeighted score 75 / 100

NPV1,020EGP millions

IRR21.1%

Peak funding2,450EGP millions

Recommendation rationale

Lower-Density PremiumReduced density · premium coastal product

Preferred risk-adjusted return with manageable peak funding and a deliverable planning strategy.

Decision basis & conditions

Decision question
Which development strategy delivers the best risk-adjusted return?

Currency / scale
EGP millions

Conditions before approval
Validate market depth, confirm planning envelope, lock benchmark construction cost and test downside funding headroom.

Confirm like-for-like scope, valuation date, currency and cost inclusions.
Validate market depth and phasing assumptions.
Confirm planning, infrastructure and delivery constraints.
Test downside funding headroom before commitment.

#1 Lower-Density Premium

75 / 100

NPV 1,020
IRR 21.1%
Risk 1.8 / 5

#2 Residential-Led

54 / 100

NPV 1,175
IRR 20.4%
Risk 3.0 / 5

#3 Base Masterplan

16 / 100

NPV 910
IRR 18.8%
Risk 2.5 / 5

Coastal Development OptionsDevelopment Options Assessment

Comparative scorecard

Financial, Delivery & Risk Assessment

Scores are relative to the alternatives entered and should be used as a structured decision aid, not an automatic approval.

Rank	Option / strategy	GFA / BUA	NPV	IRR	Margin	Peak funding	Duration	Risk	Score
1	Lower-Density Premium Reduced density · premium coastal product	132,000	1,020	21.1%	19.6%	2,450	42 mo.	1.8/5	75
2	Residential-Led Higher residential allocation · two phases	168,000	1,175	20.4%	21.7%	2,950	54 mo.	3.0/5	54
3	Base Masterplan Balanced mixed-use · single phase	155,000	910	18.8%	18.7%	2,800	48 mo.	2.5/5	16

Decision weights

Npv	25%
Irr	20%
Margin	15%
Peak funding	15%
Duration	10%
Risk	15%

Interpretation

NPV, IRR and margin are scored positively.
Peak funding, duration and risk are scored inversely.
Risk combines planning, market, delivery and capital scores.
Changing the alternative set changes relative normalized scores.

Coastal Development OptionsDevelopment Options Assessment

Option schedules

Financial & Risk Detail

Detailed schedules support the scorecard and provide a like-for-like audit trail.

#1 Lower-Density Premium

Strategy	Reduced density · premium coastal product
GFA / BUA	132,000 m²
Gross development value	9,250
Development cost	5,660
Land cost	1,350
Finance cost	430
NPV / IRR	1,020 / 21.1%
Margin / peak funding	19.6% / 2,450
Duration / risk	42 mo. / 1.8 of 5
Risk profile	Planning 1 · Market 2 · Delivery 2 · Capital 2

#2 Residential-Led

Strategy	Higher residential allocation · two phases
GFA / BUA	168,000 m²
Gross development value	10,850
Development cost	6,540
Land cost	1,350
Finance cost	610
NPV / IRR	1,175 / 20.4%
Margin / peak funding	21.7% / 2,950
Duration / risk	54 mo. / 3.0 of 5
Risk profile	Planning 3 · Market 3 · Delivery 3 · Capital 3

Coastal Development OptionsDevelopment Options Assessment

Option schedule & decision record

Base Masterplan, Recommendation & Conditions

The final option schedule is presented with the recommendation and approval conditions.

#3 Base Masterplan

Strategy	Balanced mixed-use · single phase
GFA / BUA	155,000 m²
Gross development value	9,800
Development cost	6,100
Land cost	1,350
Finance cost	520
NPV / IRR	910 / 18.8%
Margin / peak funding	18.7% / 2,800
Duration / risk	48 mo. / 2.5 of 5
Risk profile	Planning 2 · Market 2 · Delivery 3 · Capital 3

Recommendation

Lower-Density PremiumPreferred risk-adjusted return with manageable peak funding and a deliverable planning strategy.

Preferred option score: 75 / 100. Approval remains conditional on the stated validations.

Conditions before approval

Validate market depth, confirm planning envelope, lock benchmark construction cost and test downside funding headroom.

Market validation	Required
Planning envelope	Required
Cost benchmark	Required
Funding downside	Required
Investment committee approval	Pending

Decision disciplineRetain a frozen copy of all assumptions, scoring weights, plans and approvals at the decision date.