1,348 rent-validated units across 70 named buildings. Fourteen areas, one standard applied to every row. The ranking is the conclusion. The file underneath it is the product.
// The problem
Most foreign buyers choose a Chiang Mai building the same way. A photograph. A floor plan. A number quoted in a brochure, or whichever unit sits in a portal’s featured tier. Then they find out afterwards what the unit actually rents for, and what is left once vacancy, management, common-area maintenance and tax come out of it.
A brochure was never built to answer that question. Neither was a listing page. They rank on what is easiest to show, which is not the same thing as what survives the math. That is how property is marketed everywhere — it is not a Chiang Mai problem and it is not anyone local’s fault.
The fix is boring. Apply one standard to every building, then publish what survives it and what did not.
// What this is
70
Named buildings
1,348
Rent-validated units
14
Areas resolved
70
Of 70 carry a quota marker
Built from 1,348 rent-validated units across 70 Chiang Mai buildings, cross-checked against 1,287 separate rental listings. A building enters the file at three or more validated units, then is cut again on rent confidence. Figures are the June 2026 pull.
// The free sample
These are two of the 70 rows, exactly as delivered. Nothing is summarised and nothing is rounded. What is blocked out is what you are paying for — and the blocks are the same shape as the work.
// Row A
Chang Phueak / Santitham
Those are the columns you sort a shortlist by. The next row is a different building, in a different area — the same twelve fields, with the other half withheld. Neither row hands over what the other one is selling.
// Row B
Nong Pa Khrang
Two different buildings, in two different areas. Between them you can see every column the file carries and the standard each one is held to — without either row handing over the answer it is being sold for. In the file, all twelve are filled on all 70 buildings.
June 2026 pull
// What is in the file
// The credibility section
A yield is only as good as the rent under it, and a rent taken from one listing is an asking price, not evidence.
Rent here is a cross-source consensus. Asking rents are collected per platform, filtered, then combined per building. A building needs agreement from at least two independent sources to publish.
Single-source rows are excluded entirely. That is the difference between this file and a portal export: a portal shows you what one advertiser typed. This shows you what survived being checked against somebody else.
Every building carries its confidence tier in the file, so you can see which rows are multi-verified and which are mildly divergent. Nothing is presented as more certain than it is.
// What is excluded, and why
Stated here rather than discovered later.
112 buildings met the unit bar. 70 survived the rent check.
35 had rent evidence from a single source. Seven carried a rent flag. They are not in the file, because publishing them would mean publishing a number I cannot stand behind. That is a 38% exclusion rate.
38% is high, and the reason is the rental market, not the city.
Bangkok has more rental listings per building across more platforms, so more buildings clear a cross-source check — its rate was 13%. Chiang Mai is a thinner rental market to observe. A file that names the size of its own cut is worth more than one that hides it.
Four areas came out with nothing published.
Tha Sala, San Phisuea, San Phranet and Nong Khwai each had buildings qualify on unit count, and every one of them was cut for weak rent evidence. If those areas are your search, this guide does not cover them.
It is a snapshot, not a feed.
Every figure is the June 2026 pull. Listings turn over. The file tells you how these buildings priced and rented at that date, and makes no claim about any other date.
// Who it is for
// Who it is not for
FAQ
Both, and the file is the point. There is a ranking, but the ranking is only the conclusion. What you are paying for is the 70 buildings underneath it with every column filled, so you can sort it yourself and disagree with me.
No. It is the June 2026 pull, and it is labelled that way on every page of the PDF. If you want a file collected the week you order, that is the Custom Report, not this.
No. No commission, no introductions, no referral fees, no listings. I am paid for the analysis and nothing else, which is why a building can appear in this file with numbers that argue against buying it.
No, and be careful with anyone who says they can from a desk. The file reports an observed marker — that foreign-quota availability was visible for that building at the time of the pull. All 70 carry it. Actual slot availability changes and must be confirmed with the building’s juristic office at the point of purchase.
Different city, same standard. The Bangkok file covers 89 buildings across six catchments. This one covers 70 across fourteen areas, at a lower entry price and with a higher share of buildings carrying a quota marker. Buy the city you are actually buying in.
The Protocol teaches the method for any city. This applies it to one city and shows the result. If you want to run the screen yourself, buy the Protocol. If you want the answer for Chiang Mai, buy this.
// What is in the file
All 70 of them, grouped by areas. If the building you are looking at is not on this list, the file does not cover it and you should know that before you buy, not after.
// The Chiang Mai Condo Buyer’s Guide
Instant PDF. The June 2026 pull, every column filled, and a written account of the 42 buildings that were cut and why.
Get the Guide — $997-day refund, no questions asked · the unit I bought myself, unredacted →
Your $99 is credited in full against the $499 Custom Investment Report if you commission within 30 days.
The other cities
Brinkman Data Analytics is an independent research service. Not financial, investment, tax, or legal advice. All yield figures are estimates based on historical research data and are not guaranteed. International real estate carries risk of partial or total loss of capital.
