Provider at a glance
- Category
- Tokenised Real Estate
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- lofty.ai
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 83 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in October 2026.
Lofty
Tokenised US rental homes
Tokenised Real Estate
#1 Overall
Ranked #1 of 6 tokenised real estate in the published ranking
83
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
Is Lofty right for you?
Right for you if these matter most
- What the token conveys9/10, the category best
- Exit reality5/10, the category best
- Open to you10/10, the category best
- Fees disclosed7/10, the category best
Not yet tested for your country. Markets it lists: Global.
to test where you can use it.
The rank above is the published one, the same for every reader. Find my best tokenised real estate platform shows where it lands for you.
What will Lofty cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- Your balance
- $10k
How safe is Lofty?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read October 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to Lofty
Compare all 4- 2Reental32 points below · weaker on what the token conveys (2 against 9)51
- 3Figure Connect35 points below · weaker on open to you (1 against 10)48
- 4RedSwan CRE35 points below · weaker on open to you (5 against 10)48
For your setup
Find out if Lofty fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Lofty lands for you, which criteria your answers weight up, and which stated needs the record does or does not meet. The published rank stays beside it.
- A few questions
- No account required
- Ranking-blind: no commercial input
- Personalised in under 60 seconds
Find my best tokenised real estate platformNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why it leads
Why Lofty ranks #1
Each strength is read from evidence on a 0–10 ladder and weighted as the published methodology states. The 32 objective points these produce (24.9 here) sit inside the score; availability, friction, trust record and measured data add the rest. Best in this ranking on every criterion.
4 published criteria · Σ weight 100
CriterionWeightStrength · 0–10ScoreContrib.MedianBestRankEvidence
329+9.226.09#1/6Loading evidence…
265+4.162.55#1/6Loading evidence…
2210+7.044.510#1/6Loading evidence…
207+4.483.57#1/6Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin+32over Reental, #2
RobustnessHoldsacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 82–83 and stays #1
Evidence4 of 4 scored4 quoted, 4 with a source link
What would move the rank
The ranking was run again with each of Lofty’s criterion scores changed on its own, as far as each ladder goes in both directions. None of those changes moves its rank.
Strengths
4 from the score dataWhere it leads
Best for readers who weight
- What the token legally conveys — 9/10, the category best
- Exit reality — 5/10, the category best
- Who can participate — 10/10, the category best
- Fee-stack disclosure — 7/10, the category best
Tradeoffs
0 from the score dataWhere it trails
No scored criterion trails the category best by two points or more, so no tradeoff can be stated from the data.
Record watch-outs
- ~5.5% round trip in exchange fees; funding costs are unstated and Lofty’s Terms put blockchain gas fees on you
- Exit runs on Lofty’s exchange: limit orders fill only when another investor matches, and no depth is published for your specific house
- Akron condemnation and litigation naming Lofty: offchain landlord risk is real
- Unregistered-offering risk would be platform-wide, not deal-specific
Competitive position
Where Lofty leads and where it trails
Rank on every objective dimension among the rows scored on it. A criterion in the top third of its pool is listed as a lead, the bottom third as a trail; the middle is neither. Popularity, size and commercial terms are not dimensions.
Availability#1 / 614.0 of 20 · pool best
Published criteria#1 / 618.7 of 30 · pool best
Friction#1 / 67.3 of 10 · pool best
Trust record#2 / 63.2 of 8 · best 4.8
Measured data#1 / 68.3 of 18 · constant here
Where Lofty leads
- What the token legally conveys#1 / 6
- Exit reality#1 / 6
- Who can participate#1 / 6
- Fee-stack disclosure#1 / 6
Where it trailsNo criterion in the bottom third of its pool.
Closest alternatives
The 3 nearest rows by score
Nearest by published score in either direction. Each card states the criteria on which the two rows differ and the cost difference under the same scenario inputs; the compare arithmetic below shows why the higher one ranks higher.
Reental#2 of 6 · score 51 · 32.0 points behind
Lofty leads on
- What the token legally conveys9 vs 2
- Exit reality5 vs 2
- Who can participate10 vs 8
Reental leads onNo scored criterion
Largest single reason Lofty is ahead: published criteria (+26.8 display points).Scenario cost: Reental has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Figure Connect#3 of 6 · score 48 · 35.0 points behind
Lofty leads on
- What the token legally conveys9 vs 6
- Exit reality5 vs 3
- Who can participate10 vs 1
Figure Connect leads onNo scored criterion
Largest single reason Lofty is ahead: published criteria (+26.8 display points).Scenario cost: Figure Connect has no verified pricing for this scenario.
RedSwan CRE#4 of 6 · score 48 · 35.0 points behind
Lofty leads on
- What the token legally conveys9 vs 6
- Exit reality5 vs 2
- Who can participate10 vs 5
RedSwan CRE leads onNo scored criterion
Largest single reason Lofty is ahead: published criteria (+22.9 display points).Scenario cost: RedSwan CRE has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against #2
83 vs 51 · gap 32.0Why Lofty ranks above Reental
DimensionThisReentalGap share
Availability · 23% weight14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight18.78.4+26.8, better
Friction · 12% weight7.35.3+5.2, better
Trust record · 9% weight3.23.2same
Measured data · 21% weight · constant here8.38.3same
Published criterionThisReentalPoints
What the token legally conveys · w3292+7.17, better
Exit reality · w2652+2.50, better
Who can participate · w22108+1.41, better
Fee-stack disclosure · w2073+2.56, better
Net8351+32.0
Your scenario
Lofty is not priced for this scenario
The annual management fee on your balance. Excludes performance fees, spreads and any redemption charge. Change an input and every figure recomputes from the published rate; the published rank does not move.
your cost/yr · default scenario — set your own
Your balance · your input$10k
Rate read from the provider’s published pricing ↗ on 22 October 2026.
your cost/yrCost is stated as your cost/yr in USD; it is never a yield, never annualised, and it does not enter the score.
Not priced on this basis
Under the default inputs · USDCategory medianNot priced0 of 6 rows priced
Cheapest pricedNone pricedDifference not stated · availability not applied — set your country to filter
6 of 6 rows in this ranking have no verified rate for this scenario and are absent from the median, not counted as free.
Evidence
Evidence read 22 October 2026
One row per published criterion: the page each strength was read from, its source type by domain, the reading date and whether the file and the published table agree. Open a row for the quote and the receipt.
4 of 4 cells scored
Score evidenceVerified4 of 4 criteria reconstruct from receipts
4 of 4 criteria reconstruct from a quoted, sourced receipt equal to the published strength.Public receiptsReading…4 quoted with a source URL
The receipt file has not been read yet.Evidence confidenceHighcoverage and corroboration, never freshness
4/4 criteria scored, with 4 dated sources quoted.RobustnessHoldsrank #1 across every one-point re-run
Whether the position holds when one criterion score is changed by one point and the ranking is run again. It is always a re-run of the ranking, never an estimate.The newest evidence read on the platform is 3 November 2026; this category's reading is older. The scores stand as read on 22 October 2026.
Reading the evidence ledger…
CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt
What the token legally conveysstrength 9 · weight 32Report an error—22 October 2026*
Unknown
No reading date is recorded for this cell or its category.No receipt
A strength is published but no quote or source page is on file for it.Exit realitystrength 5 · weight 26Report an error—22 October 2026*
Unknown
No reading date is recorded for this cell or its category.No receipt
A strength is published but no quote or source page is on file for it.Who can participatestrength 10 · weight 22Report an error—22 October 2026*
Unknown
No reading date is recorded for this cell or its category.No receipt
A strength is published but no quote or source page is on file for it.Fee-stack disclosurestrength 7 · weight 20Report an error—22 October 2026*
Unknown
No reading date is recorded for this cell or its category.No receipt
A strength is published but no quote or source page is on file for it.How you can lose money here, and what the ranking scores
- Insolvency failure (Lofty 9/10): the firm or issuer that owes you cannot pay.Scored by What the token legally conveys · 32%
- Regulatory failure (Lofty 10/10): no licence where you are, or a forced market exit.Scored by Who can participate · 22%
- Exit failure (Lofty 5/10): you cannot get out at par, on time, or with what is yours.Scored by Exit reality · 26%
Not assessed by this ranking: Contract failure, Control failure, Custody failure, Information failure. A high place says nothing about these; the Methodology tab says what each means. Also scored, as cost, quality or a summary of several families: Fee-stack disclosure (20%).
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- Lofty's How it works page (lofty.ai/how-it-works, read 22 October 2026), fee FAQ: "A 2.5% fee on share purchases and a 3% fee on share sales. No AUM fees, no upfront fees, no property management fees billed directly to investors, and no early withdrawal penalties." Its compare page (lofty.ai/compare/lofty) restates the round trip: "a round-trip trade carries roughly 5.5% in exchange fees". Market orders "include a 2.5% fee paid to market makers for instant execution"; limit orders carry no stated fee and fill only "when another investor matches it". Bank transfer and card funding are offered, but no funding-cost schedule is published on those pages, so treat funding costs as unstated rather than zero. Lofty's Terms (§4.5, last updated 1 May 2026) make you "solely responsible to pay the Gas Fees for any transaction that you initiate". Property management is paid at property level, so it sits between gross rent and your distribution.Lofty How it works page (fee FAQ and fee table), compare page and Terms ↗ · 22 October 2026
- Prices published in
- USDLofty How it works page (fee FAQ and fee table), compare page and Terms ↗ · 22 October 2026
- Licences held
- Not published
- Compliance level
- partial
- Regulatory note
- Not published
- Supported chains
- Algorand
- Markets served
- global
- Primary markets
- Property investors
- Restricted markets
- Not published
- Operating limits
- 15% per-investor ownership cap per property; exit is on Lofty’s 24/7 exchange with no holding period, where limit orders fill only when another investor matches.
- Availability note
- Lofty's How it works page (lofty.ai/how-it-works, FAQ "Who can invest on Lofty?", read 22 October 2026): "Anyone, both US and international investors, except residents of sanctioned countries. You must be 18 or older and complete identity verification." Lofty's Terms of Service (lofty.ai/terms) add that a user may not be "a citizen, resident, or organized in a jurisdiction or territory that is the subject of comprehensive country-wide, territory-wide, or regional economic sanctions by the United States." No accreditation test is stated; neither page lists countries by name.
No confirmed legal entity is on file for this record. Nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with Lofty: where to complain, and where to report a scam
Loading the routes for your country.
How this page is reviewed
Reviewed means this product in this category was read against its sources on or after that date; every ranked category is re-read at least every 45 days. Models research, extract and parse. A deterministic engine ranks. Every quote passes an adversarial refute pass.
Accountable for this review: Mathias Siemonsmeier, Founder.
How we review · Review calendar · Corrections log · How we make money
History
What the record carries
Changes to published ranks are recorded in a ledger; every step and its cause is listed on the rank-history page. The entries below begin with the current verified snapshot, then the methodology versions whose changes applied to this category, newest first.
11 methodology entries
- 22 October 2026Current verified snapshot · methodology 2026.10.18Score 83, #1 of 6. 4 of 4 criteria scored. History starts here; earlier values are not interpolated.
- 10 October 2026
2026.10.8When nothing serves your country, the list shown for reference is the published ranking · platform-wide- fixed The reference list shown when nothing serves your country is the published order with the published scores, and a build check now fails any such list out of that order or with a score the ranking does not publish.
- fixed The explorer prints an overall rank only for a row the published ranking holds; a country entrant such as Coinbase Commerce for US merchants shows no overall rank.
- changed Published orders do not move. Country results change only where nothing serves the country: in India bill pay keeps Bitcoin Well first and now shows Strike second, as published; 35 such runs across all categories and countries now match the published list exactly.
- 10 October 2026
2026.10.7Forty-one more products are offered only where their own quoted terms serve- fixed 141 country exclusions on 31 rows, each the name of a country the row's own quoted terms exclude: for example Mercuryo Hungary, China, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Chile, Colombia and Morocco; Gemini Custody the United Kingdom, Australia and the EU after its wind-down; Backed xStocks the US, Canada, the UK, Australia, Nigeria, the Philippines and Venezuela.
- changed Thirteen rows list the only countries their terms serve: Coins.ph the Philippines, Spritz bill pay, Brex, Unchained, WisdomTree, Franklin BENJI and AnchorWatch the United States (with its territories for AnchorWatch), PRYPCO Mint the UAE, N26 crypto seven EU countries, Gemini Tokenized Stocks the EU, XNET the US, Canada and the UK, Coldbit Steel and MetaMask Card the countries they list.
- changed Published (no-country) orders do not move. Country results change: in India six categories each lose one row (bill pay, cards, off-ramps, P2P, seed backup, tokenised real estate), and bill pay there has no row confirmed available, so it shows the published order marked as such; country pages list 23 fewer rows (24,357 to 24,334). The grounding test now matches full country names in any case, which shows seven earlier exclusions were quoted all along: the named debt of unquoted exclusions falls from 40 to 33 pairs.
- 10 October 2026
2026.10.6A criterion you require re-scores the rows that meet it · platform-wide- changed The explorer sends each criterion you require, at any band, as fit_required with your other answers; region, licence, chain and fact filters stay filters. On /best, a required criterion joins For you as a marked preference does, which needs your country; Overall stays the published ranking, filtered.
- added Every published criterion has a golden case as the explorer sends it (require:<criterion>), so the order a requirement gives is replayed and gated as the published order is, and a change to it needs an entry here.
Methodology 2026.10.18, the same published run every visitor sees · receipt tokenised_realestate:lofty:2026.10.18:a0d75d028d86
Are you Lofty? Reply to this verdict, or send evidence, ask for a correction or claim the listing. Every message gets a public ticket number; none of it changes a rank unless a public page or a signed statement supports it.