Category: CRE Market Analytics & Data

  • Fastest Growing CRE Bank Lenders 2026: Banks Adding Commercial Real Estate Loans

    Quick answerBestCRE ranks Beacon Bank and Trust first, with $9.6 billion of CRE loans and growth of +229.8%. Sunflower Bank, N.A. follows at +152.4% on $5.1 billion, while Pinnacle Bank ranks third at +123.7% on $36.8 billion. The Huntington National Bank and Fifth Third Bank, N.A. complete the leading group at +109.8% and +104.4%. The ranking measures year over year change in total commercial real estate loans among banks with at least $1 billion of CRE loans as of June 30, 2026.

    BestCRE ranked banks by the year over year change in total commercial real estate loans from June 30, 2025 to June 30, 2026. The universe is limited to banks reporting at least $1 billion of CRE loans. The resulting table contains 50 banks with a combined $315.3 billion of CRE loans. That compares with $3.07 trillion across 4,167 banks. Growth identifies institutions adding CRE balances, but it does not establish the cause. Reported changes can include acquisitions of other banks, so borrowers should read the growth rate alongside the current size and composition of each loan book.

    The table separates CRE balances into construction and land, multifamily, owner occupied, and investor nonfarm nonresidential loans. Across the ranked banks, those categories total $44.4 billion, $63.1 billion, $84.0 billion, and $123.8 billion, respectively. These figures help borrowers identify institutions with meaningful exposure to a particular property or loan type. CRE share of loans adds context about portfolio concentration, while investor CRE to equity provides another measure of concentration. Headquarters indicate a bank’s home market, although lending availability remains dependent on local coverage, borrower relationships, property location, and the bank’s current credit process.

    Prime rate 7.00%SOFR 3.89%5 year Treasury 4.78%10 year Treasury 4.96%Fed funds 3.88%Benchmarks as of Oct 26, 2026

    Banks ranked by one year growth in CRE loans

    RankBankHeadquartersTotal CRE loans ($M)Construction and land ($M)Multifamily ($M)Owner occupied ($M)Change, 1 yearCRE share of loans
    1Beacon Bank and TrustBoston, MA$9,595$379$2,239$1,785+229.8%53.8%
    2Sunflower Bank, N.A.Dallas, TX$5,082$323$2,613$951+152.4%43.4%
    3Pinnacle BankNashville, TN$36,789$5,890$4,865$9,453+123.7%41.5%
    4The Huntington National BankColumbus, OH$37,932$5,322$4,884$13,331+109.8%19.8%
    5Fifth Third Bank, N.A.Cincinnati, OH$33,581$7,971$4,143$11,997+104.4%18.7%
    6Vallant BankElberton, GA$1,688$383$92.6$565+95.5%56.6%
    7Newtek Bank, N.A.Miami, FL$1,040$106$155$569+90.5%50.7%
    8Nicolet National BankGreen Bay, WI$4,900$732$737$1,675+89.8%43.5%
    9Banco Bilbao Vizcaya, S.a.NEW YORK CITY, NY$2,576$2,268$308$0.0+84.1%6.6%
    10Metro City BankDoraville, GA$1,514$69.3$21.9$735+83.8%38.2%
    11OceanFirst Bank, N.A.Toms River, NJ$10,244$739$2,361$1,612+74.7%62.9%
    12Mechanics BankWalnut Creek, CA$7,498$350$5,074$461+55.3%55.2%
    13Equity BankAndover, KS$2,532$711$248$558+55.0%46.8%
    14Community West BankFresno, CA$2,243$224$230$531+49.7%63.3%
    15Plumas BankQuincy, CA$1,063$34.9$150$451+48.7%70.1%
    16QNB BankQuakertown, PA$1,085$142$211$258+47.5%63.2%
    17Burke & Herbert Bank & Trust CompanyAlexandria, VA$5,504$453$785$1,153+47.4%68.8%
    18The Farmers National Bank of CanfieldCanfield, OH$2,064$202$218$632+47.2%43.2%
    19The Park National BankNewark, OH$3,839$614$356$1,034+43.7%39.5%
    20Citizens Business Bank, N.A.Ontario, CA$9,149$214$1,235$2,823+43.6%76.1%
    21Needham BankNeedham, MA$3,444$760$567$816+42.7%53.1%
    22Wayne BankHonesdale, PA$1,012$130$85.6$446+42.6%44.7%
    23Forbright BankPotomac, MD$2,829$331$225$1,473+41.1%46.4%
    24FirstBankNashville, TN$7,096$1,158$768$2,153+39.1%54.3%
    25Beal Bank USALas Vegas, NV$1,730$400$0.7$35.3+38.5%43.9%
    26Heartland Bank and Trust CompanyBloomington, IL$2,732$430$667$507+37.4%57.4%
    27Columbia BankRoseburg, OR$26,361$2,030$10,274$6,893+36.5%55.8%
    28Rockland Trust CompanyRockland, MA$10,387$1,490$2,165$2,213+32.2%56.4%
    29First Bank of the LakeOsage Beach, MO$1,170$106$0.0$1,060+32.1%53.8%
    30NBH BankGreenwood Village, CO$4,089$698$300$1,221+31.9%41.7%
    31First Community BankLexington, SC$1,120$167$47.6$371+31.9%70.5%
    32Regent BankTulsa, OK$1,002$290$72.1$295+31.4%53.6%
    33First Merchants BankMuncie, IN$5,523$881$767$1,369+30.5%35.4%
    34CNB BankClearfield, PA$3,090$473$625$648+30.4%47.5%
    35Georgia Banking CompanyAtlanta, GA$1,228$270$70.4$267+29.8%47.4%
    36Third Coast BankHumble, TX$2,463$888$59.0$584+29.3%45.3%
    37First County BankStamford, CT$1,110$125$339$233+29.0%58.0%
    38Optum Bank, Inc.Draper, UT$6,412$88.0$2,048$49.0+28.3%64.4%
    39Celtic BankSalt Lake City, UT$1,976$87.6$0.0$1,875+27.3%43.2%
    40Eastern BankBoston, MA$9,932$516$3,534$1,634+27.1%42.6%
    41The Bank of MissouriPerryville, MO$1,073$288$113$325+26.1%33.7%
    42City BankLubbock, TX$2,007$484$230$530+26.0%53.1%
    43Associated Bank, N.A.Green Bay, WI$10,594$2,546$2,463$1,575+25.8%29.0%
    44Amalgamated BankNew York, NY$2,314$16.7$1,862$41.2+25.2%44.9%
    45Heritage BankOlympia, WA$3,863$397$529$1,225+24.8%67.2%
    46Bank First, N.A.Manitowoc, WI$2,227$242$452$828+24.8%49.2%
    47Bank of TennesseeKingsport, TN$1,101$180$176$247+24.8%60.5%
    48Capitol Federal Savings BankTopeka, KS$2,071$258$235$174+24.7%25.3%
    49TowneBankPortsmouth, VA$8,969$1,321$865$2,496+22.8%57.9%
    50Customers BankMalvern, PA$6,436$193$2,661$1,871+22.7%35.7%

    Source: FDIC Call Reports as of June 30, 2026 (schedule RC-C). Dollar figures in millions. Change, 1 year compares total CRE loans with June 30, 2025. Bank names link to each bank’s FDIC record.

    The leaders combine very different portfolio sizes and mixes. Beacon Bank and Trust grew +229.8% to $9.6 billion, with $5.2 billion in investor nonfarm nonresidential loans. Sunflower Bank, N.A. grew +152.4% to $5.1 billion, including $2.6 billion of multifamily loans. Pinnacle Bank reached $36.8 billion after growth of +123.7%, while The Huntington National Bank reached $37.9 billion after +109.8%. Concentration also varies considerably. OceanFirst Bank, N.A. reports a 62.9% CRE share of loans and a 3.18x investor CRE to equity ratio. Fifth Third Bank, N.A. reports an 18.7% CRE share and a 0.57x ratio. Several smaller institutions have high CRE shares, including Citizens Business Bank, N.A. at 76.1% and Plumas Bank at 70.1%. The data shows where balances sit and how they changed, not the lending decisions behind those changes.

    Use growth, size, mix and concentration together

    Growth is a useful starting point for a loan search because it identifies banks that added CRE balances during the measurement period. It should not be treated as a promise that a bank is accepting every property type or transaction. A larger CRE book can indicate greater appetite and hold capacity, while a smaller but rapidly growing book may merit a closer look. Pinnacle Bank, for example, reports $36.8 billion of CRE loans and +123.7% growth. Vallant Bank reports $1.7 billion and +95.5% growth. Both rank highly, but their reported portfolios differ substantially in scale.

    Borrowers can use the category columns to narrow the initial call list. A multifamily borrower might note Columbia Bank’s $10.3 billion multifamily balance, while a construction borrower might examine Fifth Third Bank, N.A. and its $8.0 billion construction and land balance. Owner occupied borrowers can compare banks such as The Huntington National Bank, with $13.3 billion in that category. Concentration should remain part of the review because a bank with substantial CRE exposure may be selective about additional commitments. The ranking is best used to identify possible lenders before confirming geography, relationship requirements and current interest directly with each bank.

    Get your deal in front of the right lenders

    Tell BestCRE about the property, the loan amount and the timeline. We package the request and bring back term sheets from banks, debt funds, life companies, CMBS, agency and SBA lenders, so you compare more than the bank down the street.

    Tell Us About Your DealHow BestCRE Capital Works

    Portfolio mix shows where reported CRE balances are concentrated

    Loan mix distinguishes banks with similar growth rates. Mechanics Bank reports $7.5 billion of total CRE loans, including $5.1 billion of multifamily loans. FirstBank reports $7.1 billion, with $1.2 billion in construction and land, $767.5 million in multifamily, $2.2 billion in owner occupied loans, and $3.0 billion in investor nonfarm nonresidential loans. Banco Bilbao Vizcaya, S.a. reports $2.6 billion of CRE loans, including $2.3 billion in construction and land. These balances show where each reported portfolio is most active without establishing current underwriting preferences.

    CRE share of loans and investor CRE to equity provide different views of concentration. Citizens Business Bank, N.A. has a 76.1% CRE share of loans and a 2.03x investor CRE to equity ratio. First County Bank reports a 58.0% CRE share and a 4.59x ratio, which is high relative to the other banks in the table. Celtic Bank reports a 43.2% CRE share and a 0.11x ratio, which is low relative to the table. Borrowers should treat concentration as context: a bank can have a large relevant portfolio while still being selective about property type, market or relationship fit.

    Compare banks with other capital sources

    A borrower should not limit a search to institutions headquartered in the property’s state. Out of state banks may be relevant when they maintain local branches or lending coverage, although the table identifies headquarters rather than every market served. Bank lending is relationship driven and local, so reported growth does not confirm that a bank will pursue a particular transaction. Comparing several banks can clarify which institutions currently have the geographic coverage, balance sheet capacity and portfolio fit required for the request. Direct contact remains necessary because call reports describe existing balances, not future commitments.

    Nonbank lenders are another part of the comparison. Debt funds, life companies, CMBS, agency and SBA lenders do not appear in bank call reports. Their presence matters because a transaction that does not fit a bank’s portfolio, concentration position or relationship model may still fit another capital source. The bank ranking provides evidence about reported CRE holdings and recent growth, while a broader loan search tests availability outside that reporting universe. Borrowers should compare several sources on the terms relevant to the property and transaction after using the table to create an initial list of banks.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    Which banks are adding the most commercial real estate loans?

    Beacon Bank and Trust ranks first by year over year CRE loan growth at +229.8%, followed by Sunflower Bank, N.A. at +152.4% and Pinnacle Bank at +123.7%. The Huntington National Bank ranks fourth at +109.8%, and Fifth Third Bank, N.A. ranks fifth at +104.4%. These percentages measure the change in total CRE loans from June 30, 2025 to June 30, 2026. They show which qualifying banks added balances most rapidly, but they do not show whether growth came from newly originated loans, acquired portfolios, or acquisitions of other banks.

    How does BestCRE define a commercial real estate lender for this ranking?

    BestCRE includes banks with at least $1 billion of total CRE loans and ranks them by year over year change in those loans. Total CRE consists of reported construction and land, multifamily, owner occupied, and investor nonfarm nonresidential balances. The table contains 50 banks with $315.3 billion of CRE loans. It is drawn from a broader banking universe of 4,167 institutions holding $3.07 trillion of CRE loans. The ranking therefore focuses on qualifying banks with positive growth rather than presenting every bank or every source of commercial property financing.

    Can rapid CRE loan growth result from a bank acquisition?

    Yes. The measured growth is the change in total CRE loans from June 30, 2025 to June 30, 2026, and it can include acquisitions of other banks. That limitation is important when interpreting increases such as Beacon Bank and Trust’s +229.8% or The Huntington National Bank’s +109.8%. The call report totals establish the change in reported balances, but the ranking does not assign a cause to that change. Borrowers should use growth as evidence that the reported CRE book expanded, then assess current lending interest and local availability directly with the institution.

    What data sources support the bank lender ranking?

    The ranking uses FDIC Call Reports, formally Reports of Condition and Income, including schedule RC-C, together with the FDIC Summary of Deposits 2026. The loan data is as of June 30, 2026. Call reports provide standardized balance sheet categories that allow CRE holdings and portfolio mix to be compared across banks. Summary of Deposits data supports the geographic context. Because the table is based on reported balances at a specific date, it should be treated as a factual portfolio snapshot rather than a statement about a bank’s present approval criteria or future lending volume.

    What interest rate context applies to this ranking?

    The loan balances are dated June 30, 2026, while the benchmark rates are as of Oct 26, 2026. At that later date, the Prime rate was 7.00%, SOFR was 3.89%, the 5 year Treasury was 4.78%, the 10 year Treasury was 4.96%, and Fed funds was 3.88%. These benchmarks provide market context but are not bank quotes and do not describe the rates offered by any institution in the table. Borrowers need current proposals because actual pricing and structure depend on the lender, property, borrower, market and transaction at the time of application.

    More BestCRE lender rankings

    CRE lenders by state

    BestCRE rankings are editorially independent and built only from public regulatory filings; no bank pays for placement. Call report figures describe loans held on each bank’s balance sheet and do not show loan terms, rates or current appetite. BestCRE is not a lender and does not make loans. Benchmark rates are informational, not quotes. See our Legal Disclaimer and Compensation Disclosure.

  • Best Owner Occupied Commercial Real Estate Lenders 2026: Banks Ranked

    Quick answerBestCRE ranks Bank of America, N.A. first with $24.7 billion of owner occupied loans, followed by Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and Truist Bank at $17.8 billion each. First-Citizens Bank & Trust Company reports $16.8 billion, while JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. reports $14.4 billion. The ranking measures loans secured by owner occupied nonfarm nonresidential properties, based on FDIC Call Reports as of June 30, 2026.

    Owner occupied commercial real estate loans finance properties used by the borrower’s own business. BestCRE ranks banks by reported loans secured by owner occupied nonfarm nonresidential properties, a category that includes business premises rather than income property held primarily for investment. The table covers 50 banks with $323.6 billion in owner occupied loans. Their combined commercial real estate portfolios total $1.34 trillion, including $170.0 billion of construction and land loans, $341.1 billion of multifamily loans and $503.0 billion of investor nonfarm nonresidential loans.

    The ranking is based on FDIC Call Reports, formally Reports of Condition and Income, schedule RC-C, together with the FDIC Summary of Deposits 2026. The balances are reported as of June 30, 2026. Across all 4,167 banks, total commercial real estate loans were $3.07 trillion. The table does not show quoted loan terms, pricing or approval standards. It shows reported portfolio size, mix, annual change, loan concentration and headquarters, giving borrowers a consistent starting point for identifying banks that hold meaningful owner occupied commercial real estate exposure.

    Prime rate 7.00%SOFR 3.89%5 year Treasury 4.78%10 year Treasury 4.96%Fed funds 3.88%Benchmarks as of Oct 26, 2026

    Banks ranked by owner occupied CRE loans

    RankBankHeadquartersTotal CRE loans ($M)Construction and land ($M)Multifamily ($M)Owner occupied ($M)Change, 1 yearCRE share of loans
    1Bank of America, N.A.Charlotte, NC$79,906$9,681$8,465$24,700+6.1%6.6%
    2Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.Sioux Falls, SD$121,623$12,464$26,549$17,825+0.3%12.2%
    3Truist BankCharlotte, NC$51,018$7,610$8,652$17,780+4.9%15.4%
    4First-Citizens Bank & Trust CompanyRaleigh, NC$38,808$7,338$2,967$16,840+0.9%25.7%
    5JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.Columbus, OH$179,847$18,789$107,317$14,363+4.6%11.5%
    6The Huntington National BankColumbus, OH$37,932$5,322$4,884$13,331+109.8%19.8%
    7Fifth Third Bank, N.A.Cincinnati, OH$33,581$7,971$4,143$11,997+104.4%18.7%
    8Manufacturers and Traders Trust CompanyBuffalo, NY$34,665$3,351$7,115$10,556+0.6%24.2%
    9PNC Bank, N.A.Wilmington, DE$47,133$5,261$14,980$10,376+14.3%12.8%
    10Pinnacle BankNashville, TN$36,789$5,890$4,865$9,453+123.7%41.5%
    11U.S. Bank, N.A.Cincinnati, OH$50,718$9,378$14,458$9,005+10.2%12.3%
    12First Horizon BankMemphis, TN$22,518$1,632$3,722$8,789+0.2%34.2%
    13Zions Bancorporation, N.A.Salt Lake City, UT$23,684$3,223$3,562$8,635+2.0%37.9%
    14BMO Bank, N.A.Chicago, IL$28,802$4,486$3,158$8,136+3.8%20.3%
    15SouthState Bank, N.A.Winter Haven, FL$28,266$2,928$2,717$7,848+6.9%55.2%
    16Valley National BankPassaic, NJ$30,353$2,484$9,034$7,688+5.2%57.8%
    17Columbia BankRoseburg, OR$26,361$2,030$10,274$6,893+36.5%55.8%
    18TD Bank, N.A.Wilmington, DE$30,408$4,311$6,714$6,837-3.6%18.4%
    19Old National BankEvansville, IN$23,021$2,446$5,855$5,966+3.2%45.3%
    20Regions BankBirmingham, AL$16,257$2,808$3,875$5,383+7.0%16.3%
    21UMB Bank, N.A.Kansas City, MO$15,713$2,927$1,725$5,005+2.5%38.2%
    22Ally BankSandy, UT$7,995$519$98.0$4,527+18.5%5.6%
    23CIBC Bank USAChicago, IL$18,426$2,120$3,990$4,438+22.1%42.5%
    24City National BankLos Angeles, CA$16,549$2,834$2,698$4,414+5.7%23.9%
    25Frost BankSan Antonio, TX$10,734$2,736$239$4,370+9.0%46.7%
    26Atlantic Union BankRichmond City, VA$15,900$1,859$2,429$4,308+3.4%55.4%
    27Citizens Bank, N.A.Providence, RI$26,949$4,746$8,036$4,002-7.4%18.1%
    28United Community BankGreenville, SC$9,988$1,338$714$3,946+4.8%50.0%
    29Glacier BankKalispell, MT$12,859$2,660$1,076$3,928+19.2%60.1%
    30BOKF, N.A.Tulsa, OK$11,334$1,488$2,046$3,796+5.2%41.8%
    31Fulton Bank, N.A.Lancaster, PA$10,083$885$1,563$3,553+0.1%41.3%
    32East West BankPasadena, CA$21,796$814$4,606$3,434+5.6%37.0%
    33Hancock Whitney BankGulfport, MS$9,315$1,359$1,274$3,354+12.5%37.8%
    34First National Bank of PennsylvaniaGreenville, PA$12,016$2,660$885$3,308-4.7%33.4%
    35Renasant BankTupelo, MS$11,354$2,013$1,158$3,221+4.0%58.4%
    36Metropolitan Commercial BankNew York, NY$6,358$482$414$3,139+17.1%86.7%
    37Bank of HopeLos Angeles, CA$8,920$213$1,144$3,138+4.6%59.3%
    38WesBanco Bank, Inc.Wheeling, WV$10,779$1,690$1,739$3,047+3.8%55.2%
    39Live Oak Banking CompanyWilmington, NC$6,163$970$26.2$3,037+17.3%46.9%
    40KeyBank, N.A.Cleveland, OH$17,153$2,896$5,445$3,010+1.5%15.3%
    41Provident BankJersey City, NJ$14,672$723$3,807$2,900+4.1%73.2%
    42Citizens Business Bank, N.A.Ontario, CA$9,149$214$1,235$2,823+43.6%76.1%
    43MidFirst BankOklahoma City, OK$9,265$1,068$1,009$2,689+1.5%27.6%
    44ServisFirst BankBirmingham, AL$9,353$1,565$1,401$2,665+9.6%64.5%
    45Prosperity BankEl Campo, TX$10,365$3,144$680$2,593+19.1%41.4%
    46First Interstate BankBillings, MT$8,497$576$1,848$2,591-14.4%59.5%
    47Flagstar Bank, N.A.Hicksville, NY$35,271$1,370$26,922$2,509-17.5%57.6%
    48Banner BankWalla Walla, WA$7,532$1,697$1,032$2,501+4.1%62.7%
    49TowneBankPortsmouth, VA$8,969$1,321$865$2,496+22.8%57.9%
    50Webster Bank, N.A.STAMFORD, CT$22,551$1,695$7,695$2,434+5.8%39.0%

    Source: FDIC Call Reports as of June 30, 2026 (schedule RC-C). Dollar figures in millions. Change, 1 year compares total CRE loans with June 30, 2025. Bank names link to each bank’s FDIC record.

    Bank of America, N.A. leads the owner occupied ranking with $24.7 billion, although its total CRE portfolio of $79.9 billion ranks behind Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. at $121.6 billion and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. at $179.8 billion. Wells Fargo and Truist Bank each report $17.8 billion of owner occupied loans, but their broader CRE books differ at $121.6 billion and $51.0 billion. Growth also varies sharply. Pinnacle Bank reports a +123.7% annual change in total CRE, while The Huntington National Bank reports +109.8%. TD Bank, N.A. reports -3.6%. Concentration separates large diversified banks from more CRE focused institutions. Bank of America reports CRE at 6.6% of loans and an investor CRE to equity ratio of 0.23x. Metropolitan Commercial Bank reports 86.7% and 3.33x, while Flagstar Bank, N.A. reports an investor CRE to equity ratio of 4.02x, high relative to other banks in the table.

    Use portfolio size as the starting point for a loan search

    A large owner occupied balance can indicate appetite and capacity to hold these loans, but rank alone does not establish that a bank will finance a particular property. Bank of America, N.A. reports $24.7 billion of owner occupied loans, compared with $17.8 billion at Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and $17.8 billion at Truist Bank. Borrowers can use those balances to build an initial contact list, then ask each bank about property fit, geographic coverage and the relationship it expects.

    Total CRE size adds context. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. has the largest CRE portfolio in the table at $179.8 billion, yet its owner occupied balance is $14.4 billion and its owner occupied rank is 5. First-Citizens Bank & Trust Company ranks 4 with $16.8 billion of owner occupied loans despite a smaller $38.8 billion total CRE book. Growth can identify banks adding CRE loans, while concentration may indicate that a bank will be selective. Lending remains relationship driven and local, so borrowers should compare banks that know their market.

    Get your deal in front of the right lenders

    Tell BestCRE about the property, the loan amount and the timeline. We package the request and bring back term sheets from banks, debt funds, life companies, CMBS, agency and SBA lenders, so you compare more than the bank down the street.

    Tell Us About Your DealHow BestCRE Capital Works

    Loan mix shows where reported CRE exposure is concentrated

    The component balances reveal substantial differences in activity. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. reports $107.3 billion of multifamily loans within its $179.8 billion CRE portfolio, compared with $14.4 billion of owner occupied loans. Bank of America, N.A. reports $37.1 billion of investor nonfarm nonresidential loans and $24.7 billion of owner occupied loans. First-Citizens Bank & Trust Company reports $16.8 billion of owner occupied loans against $11.7 billion of investor nonfarm nonresidential loans. These figures show portfolio mix, not current underwriting preferences.

    Concentration provides another lens on the same balance sheet. SouthState Bank, N.A. reports CRE equal to 55.2% of loans and an investor CRE to equity ratio of 2.11x. Valley National Bank reports 57.8% and 2.70x. By comparison, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. reports 12.2% and 0.61x. A high ratio relative to other banks in the table can signal that a lender may be selective about additional exposure. A low ratio can reflect a more diversified loan book, but it does not by itself establish availability or approval standards.

    Compare banks with financing sources outside call reports

    The headquarters field identifies the reported home office, not the complete lending footprint. A borrower may find relevant banks headquartered outside the property’s state through local branches or established market coverage, but the table does not list branch level lending authority. For example, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. is headquartered in Sioux Falls, SD, and reports $17.8 billion of owner occupied loans. PNC Bank, N.A. is headquartered in Wilmington, DE, and reports $10.4 billion. Borrowers should confirm local coverage directly before treating a national rank as evidence of availability.

    Bank call reports also exclude debt funds, life companies, CMBS lenders, agency lenders and SBA lenders. These sources can provide alternatives when bank balance sheet capacity, relationship requirements or property fit do not align with a request. SBA lending also competes directly in the owner occupied segment because the financed property houses the borrower’s business. Comparing several sources helps a borrower evaluate fit across lender types, while the bank ranking supplies a consistent view of reported portfolio scale. Benchmark rates as of Oct 26, 2026 include the Prime rate at 7.00% and SOFR at 3.89%, but they are not bank loan quotes.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    What qualifies as an owner occupied commercial real estate loan?

    The FDIC category covers loans secured by owner occupied nonfarm nonresidential properties. The borrower’s business occupies the property, distinguishing the exposure from nonfarm nonresidential real estate held primarily for investment. The segment can include properties used for operating businesses, while SBA lending also competes for owner occupied transactions. BestCRE ranks banks by the balance reported in this category. Bank of America, N.A. reports $24.7 billion, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. reports $17.8 billion and Truist Bank reports $17.8 billion as of June 30, 2026.

    Does a high ranking mean a bank will approve my loan?

    No. The ranking measures reported portfolio balances, not approval probability, pricing or available terms. Bank of America, N.A. ranks 1 with $24.7 billion of owner occupied loans, while First-Citizens Bank & Trust Company ranks 4 with $16.8 billion. Those balances show that each bank holds substantial exposure to the category. They do not show whether a specific property, borrower, market or transaction fits current requirements. Borrowers still need to contact banks directly and provide financial, property and relationship information for an individual credit decision.

    Why can a bank rank highly in total CRE but lower in owner occupied loans?

    Total CRE combines construction and land, multifamily, owner occupied, and investor nonfarm nonresidential balances. A bank can therefore have a large overall portfolio without placing the same emphasis on owner occupied exposure. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. ranks 1 nationally by total CRE with $179.8 billion, including $107.3 billion of multifamily loans and $14.4 billion of owner occupied loans. It ranks 5 for owner occupied loans. Flagstar Bank, N.A. ranks 10 nationally with $35.3 billion of total CRE but ranks 47 for owner occupied loans at $2.5 billion.

    How current is the bank ranking?

    The portfolio data is as of June 30, 2026 and comes from FDIC Call Reports, formally Reports of Condition and Income, schedule RC-C. The FDIC Summary of Deposits 2026 supports the related bank and location information. Call report balances represent a reporting date rather than a live measure of new loan availability. The table includes 50 banks with $323.6 billion of owner occupied loans and $1.34 trillion of total CRE loans. Market conditions, individual balance sheets and lending activity may change after the reporting date.

    What benchmark rates provide context for the ranking?

    The benchmark rates are reference points, not offered loan rates. As of Oct 26, 2026, the Prime rate was 7.00%, SOFR was 3.89%, the 5 year Treasury was 4.78%, the 10 year Treasury was 4.96% and Fed funds was 3.88%. Actual commercial mortgage pricing is not reported in the ranked table and cannot be inferred from portfolio balances. A bank with a large owner occupied book, such as Bank of America, N.A. at $24.7 billion, may still quote terms that depend on the borrower, property and transaction.

    More BestCRE lender rankings

    CRE lenders by state

    BestCRE rankings are editorially independent and built only from public regulatory filings; no bank pays for placement. Call report figures describe loans held on each bank’s balance sheet and do not show loan terms, rates or current appetite. BestCRE is not a lender and does not make loans. Benchmark rates are informational, not quotes. See our Legal Disclaimer and Compensation Disclosure.

  • Best Multifamily Bank Lenders 2026: Apartment Loan Books Ranked

    Quick answerBestCRE ranks JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. first with $107.3 billion in multifamily loans, followed by Flagstar Bank, N.A. with $26.9 billion and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. with $26.5 billion. PNC Bank, N.A. ranks fourth at $15.0 billion, while U.S. Bank, N.A. ranks fifth at $14.5 billion. The ranking measures bank loans secured by apartment properties with five or more units and held on bank balance sheets as of June 30, 2026.

    The BestCRE ranking compares loans secured by multifamily residential properties with five or more units. It covers 50 banks and is based on FDIC Call Reports as of June 30, 2026. Together, the banks in the table hold $405.2 billion in multifamily loans and $1.36 trillion in total commercial real estate loans. Their other reported CRE balances include $174.5 billion in construction and land loans, $277.2 billion in owner occupied loans and $500.4 billion in investor nonfarm nonresidential loans. These figures place each apartment loan book within the broader size and composition of the bank’s CRE exposure.

    The ranking is a starting point for identifying banks with demonstrated multifamily holdings, not a statement about current loan availability or terms. A large balance can indicate appetite and capacity to hold apartment loans, while portfolio mix shows where a bank has been most active. Year over year CRE change helps identify banks adding or reducing balances. CRE share of loans and investor CRE to equity provide concentration context that may affect selectivity. Bank lending remains relationship driven and local, so borrowers should assess geographic fit and compare several institutions even when a bank ranks highly by national multifamily balance.

    Prime rate 7.00%SOFR 3.89%5 year Treasury 4.78%10 year Treasury 4.96%Fed funds 3.88%Benchmarks as of Oct 26, 2026

    Banks ranked by multifamily loans

    RankBankHeadquartersTotal CRE loans ($M)Construction and land ($M)Multifamily ($M)Owner occupied ($M)Change, 1 yearCRE share of loans
    1JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.Columbus, OH$179,847$18,789$107,317$14,363+4.6%11.5%
    2Flagstar Bank, N.A.Hicksville, NY$35,271$1,370$26,922$2,509-17.5%57.6%
    3Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.Sioux Falls, SD$121,623$12,464$26,549$17,825+0.3%12.2%
    4PNC Bank, N.A.Wilmington, DE$47,133$5,261$14,980$10,376+14.3%12.8%
    5U.S. Bank, N.A.Cincinnati, OH$50,718$9,378$14,458$9,005+10.2%12.3%
    6Columbia BankRoseburg, OR$26,361$2,030$10,274$6,893+36.5%55.8%
    7Santander Bank, N.A.Wilmington, DE$17,133$4,384$9,375$955-7.7%29.0%
    8Valley National BankPassaic, NJ$30,353$2,484$9,034$7,688+5.2%57.8%
    9Truist BankCharlotte, NC$51,018$7,610$8,652$17,780+4.9%15.4%
    10Bank of America, N.A.Charlotte, NC$79,906$9,681$8,465$24,700+6.1%6.6%
    11Citibank, N.A.Sioux Falls, SD$26,036$7,993$8,259$845+2.9%3.4%
    12Citizens Bank, N.A.Providence, RI$26,949$4,746$8,036$4,002-7.4%18.1%
    13Webster Bank, N.A.STAMFORD, CT$22,551$1,695$7,695$2,434+5.8%39.0%
    14Manufacturers and Traders Trust CompanyBuffalo, NY$34,665$3,351$7,115$10,556+0.6%24.2%
    15Capital One, N.A.Mclean, VA$24,111$1,952$6,939$1,226-2.2%5.3%
    16TD Bank, N.A.Wilmington, DE$30,408$4,311$6,714$6,837-3.6%18.4%
    17Banc of CaliforniaLos Angeles, CA$11,904$1,867$5,882$1,509-11.4%47.4%
    18Old National BankEvansville, IN$23,021$2,446$5,855$5,966+3.2%45.3%
    19KeyBank, N.A.Cleveland, OH$17,153$2,896$5,445$3,010+1.5%15.3%
    20Mechanics BankWalnut Creek, CA$7,498$350$5,074$461+55.3%55.2%
    21The Huntington National BankColumbus, OH$37,932$5,322$4,884$13,331+109.8%19.8%
    22Pinnacle BankNashville, TN$36,789$5,890$4,865$9,453+123.7%41.5%
    23EverBank, N.A.Jacksonville, FL$7,983$110$4,856$311+9.7%21.5%
    24WaFd BankSeattle, WA$10,190$1,329$4,647$1,125+0.3%50.4%
    25East West BankPasadena, CA$21,796$814$4,606$3,434+5.6%37.0%
    26Apple BankNew York, NY$6,824$0.0$4,339$0.1+2.0%49.4%
    27Fifth Third Bank, N.A.Cincinnati, OH$33,581$7,971$4,143$11,997+104.4%18.7%
    28CIBC Bank USAChicago, IL$18,426$2,120$3,990$4,438+22.1%42.5%
    29Regions BankBirmingham, AL$16,257$2,808$3,875$5,383+7.0%16.3%
    30Provident BankJersey City, NJ$14,672$723$3,807$2,900+4.1%73.2%
    31First Horizon BankMemphis, TN$22,518$1,632$3,722$8,789+0.2%34.2%
    32ConnectOne BankEnglewood Cliffs, NJ$8,856$856$3,679$1,732+9.7%74.6%
    33Zions Bancorporation, N.A.Salt Lake City, UT$23,684$3,223$3,562$8,635+2.0%37.9%
    34Eastern BankBoston, MA$9,932$516$3,534$1,634+27.1%42.6%
    35Merchants Bank of IndianaCarmel, IN$6,783$1,995$3,329$746+3.8%39.1%
    36BMO Bank, N.A.Chicago, IL$28,802$4,486$3,158$8,136+3.8%20.3%
    37Dime Commercial BankHauppauge, NY$7,619$83.6$3,116$1,648-10.7%71.2%
    38United Fidelity Bank, fsbEvansville, IN$3,164$4.1$3,089$28.9-3.3%92.1%
    39First-Citizens Bank & Trust CompanyRaleigh, NC$38,808$7,338$2,967$16,840+0.9%25.7%
    40SouthState Bank, N.A.Winter Haven, FL$28,266$2,928$2,717$7,848+6.9%55.2%
    41City National BankLos Angeles, CA$16,549$2,834$2,698$4,414+5.7%23.9%
    42Customers BankMalvern, PA$6,436$193$2,661$1,871+22.7%35.7%
    43Sunflower Bank, N.A.Dallas, TX$5,082$323$2,613$951+152.4%43.4%
    44Cathay BankLos Angeles, CA$9,893$308$2,587$1,962+4.7%48.0%
    45Bank OZKLittle Rock, AR$18,141$6,943$2,545$852-16.1%55.7%
    46Kearny BankKearny, NJ$3,775$262$2,497$93.3-2.4%64.2%
    47Associated Bank, N.A.Green Bay, WI$10,594$2,546$2,463$1,575+25.8%29.0%
    48United BankFairfax, VA$14,204$3,336$2,437$2,171+3.2%56.7%
    49Atlantic Union BankRichmond City, VA$15,900$1,859$2,429$4,308+3.4%55.4%
    50OceanFirst Bank, N.A.Toms River, NJ$10,244$739$2,361$1,612+74.7%62.9%

    Source: FDIC Call Reports as of June 30, 2026 (schedule RC-C). Dollar figures in millions. Change, 1 year compares total CRE loans with June 30, 2025. Bank names link to each bank’s FDIC record.

    JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. leads by a wide margin with $107.3 billion in multifamily loans, compared with $26.9 billion at Flagstar Bank, N.A. and $26.5 billion at Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. The table also shows very different portfolio mixes. Multifamily represents most of Flagstar’s $35.3 billion CRE book, while Wells Fargo combines its apartment balance with $64.8 billion of investor nonfarm nonresidential loans. Growth varies sharply. Pinnacle Bank reports a +123.7% year over year CRE change, while Flagstar reports -17.5%. Concentration also differs. Bank of America, N.A. reports investor CRE to equity of 0.23x, while United Fidelity Bank, fsb reports 4.80x. Those ratios are low and high, respectively, relative to other banks in the table. A high multifamily rank therefore does not by itself describe the scale, direction or concentration of the full CRE portfolio.

    Use balance, mix and growth together when selecting banks

    Start with the multifamily balance to identify banks that already hold substantial apartment debt. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. reports $107.3 billion, while PNC Bank, N.A. reports $15.0 billion and U.S. Bank, N.A. reports $14.5 billion. Size can indicate appetite and hold capacity, but it does not establish whether a bank is pursuing a particular property, market or borrower at the time of inquiry.

    Next, compare the apartment balance with total CRE loans, year over year CRE change and headquarters. Growth can show which institutions are adding loans across their CRE books. Headquarters provides geographic context, although it does not establish branch coverage or lending territory. Because bank lending is relationship driven and local, borrowers should use the ranking to form a call list, then confirm current interest directly with each institution.

    Get your deal in front of the right lenders

    Tell BestCRE about the property, the loan amount and the timeline. We package the request and bring back term sheets from banks, debt funds, life companies, CMBS, agency and SBA lenders, so you compare more than the bank down the street.

    Tell Us About Your DealHow BestCRE Capital Works

    Portfolio mix and concentration reveal different areas of activity

    The component balances show where each bank’s reported CRE exposure sits. Mechanics Bank holds $5.1 billion in multifamily loans within a $7.5 billion CRE book. By contrast, Bank of America, N.A. holds $8.5 billion in multifamily loans within $79.9 billion of total CRE loans, including $37.1 billion of investor nonfarm nonresidential loans. The same apartment balance can therefore carry very different importance within different institutions.

    Concentration measures add another dimension. Provident Bank reports CRE equal to 73.2% of loans and investor CRE to equity of 3.64x. Citibank, N.A. reports CRE equal to 3.4% of loans and investor CRE to equity of 0.15x. These figures are high and low, respectively, relative to other banks in the table. Greater concentration can signal that a bank will be selective, while a lower ratio shows that investor CRE occupies less of its reported capital base.

    Borrowers should compare bank and nonbank capital sources

    The table includes nationally significant institutions and banks headquartered across several states. A headquarters location can help frame an initial search, but the FDIC data presented here does not identify local branches or define lending territories. Borrowers considering an out of state bank should confirm whether it has a relevant local presence and whether the property fits its current geographic coverage.

    Nonbank alternatives include debt funds, life companies, CMBS lenders, agency lenders and SBA lenders. These sources do not appear in bank call reports, so this ranking cannot compare their activity with the $405.2 billion of multifamily loans held by the listed banks. Agency loans sold to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are also excluded. Comparing several bank and nonbank sources gives borrowers a broader view of available capital and reduces reliance on any single balance sheet or lending channel.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    What counts as a multifamily loan in this ranking?

    Multifamily means a bank loan secured by an apartment property with five or more units and held on the bank’s balance sheet. The category does not include every form of apartment finance. In particular, agency loans sold to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not included in the reported balance. The ranking therefore measures retained bank exposure rather than total multifamily originations or the full financing market. As of June 30, 2026, the 50 listed banks reported a combined $405.2 billion of these multifamily loans.

    Where does the bank lending data come from?

    BestCRE uses FDIC Call Reports, formally called Reports of Condition and Income, including schedule RC-C, together with the FDIC Summary of Deposits 2026. The balance sheet figures are as of June 30, 2026. The source provides standardized categories for multifamily, construction and land, owner occupied, and investor nonfarm nonresidential loans. It also supports comparisons of total CRE exposure, annual change and concentration. Across all 4,167 banks, reported CRE loans total $3.07 trillion, while the 50 banks in this ranking account for $1.36 trillion.

    Does a large multifamily balance mean a bank originated that amount this year?

    No. The ranking shows loans held on bank balance sheets as of June 30, 2026, not annual originations, commitments or applications. A bank can add new loans while receiving repayments or selling other assets, so the ending balance should not be read as production volume. The year over year CRE change applies to the broader CRE book rather than multifamily alone. For example, Columbia Bank reports $10.3 billion in multifamily loans and a +36.5% year over year change in total CRE loans. Those figures describe balance and portfolio movement, not annual apartment originations.

    Why can a leading multifamily bank rank lower in total CRE loans?

    Banks hold different combinations of apartment, construction, owner occupied and investor nonfarm nonresidential loans. Flagstar Bank, N.A. ranks second in multifamily loans with $26.9 billion but has a national total CRE rank of 10 and $35.3 billion of total CRE loans. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. ranks third in multifamily with $26.5 billion and has a national total CRE rank of 2, supported by a broader $121.6 billion CRE book. The distinction helps borrowers separate apartment specialization from overall commercial real estate scale.

    What benchmark rates provide context for the 2026 ranking?

    Benchmark rates as of Oct 26, 2026 were 7.00% for the Prime rate, 3.89% for SOFR, 4.78% for the 5 year Treasury, 4.96% for the 10 year Treasury and 3.88% for Fed funds. These benchmarks provide market context but are not bank loan quotes, and the call report data does not disclose borrower pricing, spreads or terms. The ranking remains a measure of balance sheet holdings as of June 30, 2026. Borrowers must contact lenders directly to compare current financing proposals.

    More BestCRE lender rankings

    CRE lenders by state

    BestCRE rankings are editorially independent and built only from public regulatory filings; no bank pays for placement. Call report figures describe loans held on each bank’s balance sheet and do not show loan terms, rates or current appetite. BestCRE is not a lender and does not make loans. Benchmark rates are informational, not quotes. See our Legal Disclaimer and Compensation Disclosure.

  • Best Construction Loan Lenders 2026: Banks Ranked by Construction and Land Lending

    Quick answerBestCRE ranks JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. first with $18.8 billion in construction and land loans, followed by Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. at $12.5 billion, Bank of America, N.A. at $9.7 billion, U.S. Bank, N.A. at $9.4 billion and Citibank, N.A. at $8.0 billion. The ranking measures construction, land development and other land loans reported by banks in FDIC Call Reports as of June 30, 2026.

    Construction financing remains distributed across national banks, regional institutions and specialized CRE lenders. BestCRE’s ranking identifies the 50 banks reporting the largest balances of construction, land development and other land loans as of June 30, 2026. Together, these banks held $207.9 billion in that category and $1.33 trillion in total commercial real estate loans. The broader banking system included 4,167 banks with $3.07 trillion in total CRE loans. The ranking is based on FDIC Call Reports, formally the Reports of Condition and Income, schedule RC-C, together with the FDIC Summary of Deposits 2026.

    The construction balance establishes the order, but borrowers should examine the full loan mix before deciding which institutions to contact. The table separates construction and land, multifamily, owner occupied, and investor nonfarm nonresidential balances. It also reports annual CRE growth, CRE as a share of total loans, and investor CRE relative to total equity capital. These measures provide different views of lending activity and portfolio concentration. They do not describe current underwriting, pricing or availability for a particular project. Bank lending is relationship driven and local, so a large reported balance is a useful starting point rather than evidence that a bank will finance every property or market.

    Prime rate 7.00%SOFR 3.89%5 year Treasury 4.78%10 year Treasury 4.96%Fed funds 3.88%Benchmarks as of Oct 26, 2026

    Banks ranked by construction and land loans

    RankBankHeadquartersTotal CRE loans ($M)Construction and land ($M)Multifamily ($M)Owner occupied ($M)Change, 1 yearCRE share of loans
    1JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.Columbus, OH$179,847$18,789$107,317$14,363+4.6%11.5%
    2Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.Sioux Falls, SD$121,623$12,464$26,549$17,825+0.3%12.2%
    3Bank of America, N.A.Charlotte, NC$79,906$9,681$8,465$24,700+6.1%6.6%
    4U.S. Bank, N.A.Cincinnati, OH$50,718$9,378$14,458$9,005+10.2%12.3%
    5Citibank, N.A.Sioux Falls, SD$26,036$7,993$8,259$845+2.9%3.4%
    6Fifth Third Bank, N.A.Cincinnati, OH$33,581$7,971$4,143$11,997+104.4%18.7%
    7Truist BankCharlotte, NC$51,018$7,610$8,652$17,780+4.9%15.4%
    8First-Citizens Bank & Trust CompanyRaleigh, NC$38,808$7,338$2,967$16,840+0.9%25.7%
    9Bank OZKLittle Rock, AR$18,141$6,943$2,545$852-16.1%55.7%
    10Pinnacle BankNashville, TN$36,789$5,890$4,865$9,453+123.7%41.5%
    11The Huntington National BankColumbus, OH$37,932$5,322$4,884$13,331+109.8%19.8%
    12PNC Bank, N.A.Wilmington, DE$47,133$5,261$14,980$10,376+14.3%12.8%
    13Citizens Bank, N.A.Providence, RI$26,949$4,746$8,036$4,002-7.4%18.1%
    14BMO Bank, N.A.Chicago, IL$28,802$4,486$3,158$8,136+3.8%20.3%
    15Santander Bank, N.A.Wilmington, DE$17,133$4,384$9,375$955-7.7%29.0%
    16TD Bank, N.A.Wilmington, DE$30,408$4,311$6,714$6,837-3.6%18.4%
    17Goldman Sachs Bank USANew York, NY$13,518$4,183$2,238$118+5.2%5.4%
    18Western Alliance BankPhoenix, AZ$15,781$4,085$649$1,465-3.1%24.1%
    19Manufacturers and Traders Trust CompanyBuffalo, NY$34,665$3,351$7,115$10,556+0.6%24.2%
    20United BankFairfax, VA$14,204$3,336$2,437$2,171+3.2%56.7%
    21Zions Bancorporation, N.A.Salt Lake City, UT$23,684$3,223$3,562$8,635+2.0%37.9%
    22Prosperity BankEl Campo, TX$10,365$3,144$680$2,593+19.1%41.4%
    23SouthState Bank, N.A.Winter Haven, FL$28,266$2,928$2,717$7,848+6.9%55.2%
    24UMB Bank, N.A.Kansas City, MO$15,713$2,927$1,725$5,005+2.5%38.2%
    25KeyBank, N.A.Cleveland, OH$17,153$2,896$5,445$3,010+1.5%15.3%
    26City National BankLos Angeles, CA$16,549$2,834$2,698$4,414+5.7%23.9%
    27Regions BankBirmingham, AL$16,257$2,808$3,875$5,383+7.0%16.3%
    28Centennial BankConway, AR$9,940$2,780$1,270$1,838+12.5%58.3%
    29Frost BankSan Antonio, TX$10,734$2,736$239$4,370+9.0%46.7%
    30First National Bank of PennsylvaniaGreenville, PA$12,016$2,660$885$3,308-4.7%33.4%
    31Glacier BankKalispell, MT$12,859$2,660$1,076$3,928+19.2%60.1%
    32Simmons BankPine Bluff, AR$10,727$2,575$812$2,358+5.1%59.3%
    33Associated Bank, N.A.Green Bay, WI$10,594$2,546$2,463$1,575+25.8%29.0%
    34Valley National BankPassaic, NJ$30,353$2,484$9,034$7,688+5.2%57.8%
    35Old National BankEvansville, IN$23,021$2,446$5,855$5,966+3.2%45.3%
    36Banco Bilbao Vizcaya, S.a.NEW YORK CITY, NY$2,576$2,268$308$0.0+84.1%6.6%
    37CIBC Bank USAChicago, IL$18,426$2,120$3,990$4,438+22.1%42.5%
    38Columbia BankRoseburg, OR$26,361$2,030$10,274$6,893+36.5%55.8%
    39Arvest BankFayetteville, AR$7,489$2,021$754$1,484+11.1%36.6%
    40Renasant BankTupelo, MS$11,354$2,013$1,158$3,221+4.0%58.4%
    41Merchants Bank of IndianaCarmel, IN$6,783$1,995$3,329$746+3.8%39.1%
    42Capital One, N.A.Mclean, VA$24,111$1,952$6,939$1,226-2.2%5.3%
    43Bank Hapoalim B.M.New York, NY$2,983$1,919$1,064$0.0+20.0%34.7%
    44First National Bank of OmahaOmaha, NE$6,021$1,882$610$1,515+6.7%24.6%
    45Banc of CaliforniaLos Angeles, CA$11,904$1,867$5,882$1,509-11.4%47.4%
    46Atlantic Union BankRichmond City, VA$15,900$1,859$2,429$4,308+3.4%55.4%
    47International Bank of CommerceLaredo, TX$4,813$1,749$807$416+9.2%66.6%
    48Ameris BankAtlanta, GA$10,821$1,703$2,010$1,895+5.6%47.8%
    49Banner BankWalla Walla, WA$7,532$1,697$1,032$2,501+4.1%62.7%
    50Webster Bank, N.A.STAMFORD, CT$22,551$1,695$7,695$2,434+5.8%39.0%

    Source: FDIC Call Reports as of June 30, 2026 (schedule RC-C). Dollar figures in millions. Change, 1 year compares total CRE loans with June 30, 2025. Bank names link to each bank’s FDIC record.

    JPMorgan Chase leads with $18.8 billion in construction and land loans, ahead of Wells Fargo at $12.5 billion, Bank of America at $9.7 billion and U.S. Bank at $9.4 billion. Their broader CRE mixes differ materially. JPMorgan reports $107.3 billion in multifamily loans, while Wells Fargo reports $64.8 billion in investor nonfarm nonresidential loans. Citibank ranks fifth in construction and land at $8.0 billion despite ranking 19 in total CRE. Growth also varies: Pinnacle Bank reports +123.7% annual CRE growth, while Bank OZK reports -16.1%. Concentration provides another distinction. Bank OZK reports CRE equal to 55.7% of loans and investor CRE to equity of 2.75x, both high relative to many banks in the table. Bank of America reports corresponding figures of 6.6% and 0.23x.

    Use reported scale as the starting point for a loan search

    A large construction and land balance can indicate appetite for the category and capacity to hold loans, but the ranking should be used as a screening tool. Borrowers can begin with banks near the top, then compare the property type, market and relationship requirements relevant to the project. Total CRE size adds context. Truist Bank, for example, reports $51.0 billion in total CRE loans and $7.6 billion in construction and land loans, while Bank OZK reports $18.1 billion and $6.9 billion, respectively. Similar construction rankings can therefore sit within very different overall CRE books.

    Borrowers should also review annual growth and headquarters location before making calls. Positive growth shows which banks are adding CRE loans at the reporting date, although it does not establish current approval standards. U.S. Bank reports +10.2% growth, while Citizens Bank reports -7.4%. Headquarters can help identify institutions with an established regional connection, but it is not a complete map of lending coverage. A productive search usually includes several banks, with questions focused on current interest in the project type, geography and requested loan size. Reported balances establish scale, not a commitment to lend.

    Get your deal in front of the right lenders

    Tell BestCRE about the property, the loan amount and the timeline. We package the request and bring back term sheets from banks, debt funds, life companies, CMBS, agency and SBA lenders, so you compare more than the bank down the street.

    Tell Us About Your DealHow BestCRE Capital Works

    Loan mix and concentration identify different CRE profiles

    The component balances show where each bank’s reported CRE exposure is concentrated. JPMorgan’s $179.8 billion CRE book includes $107.3 billion of multifamily loans, while Wells Fargo’s $121.6 billion book includes $64.8 billion of investor nonfarm nonresidential loans. Fifth Third reports $12.0 billion of owner occupied loans within a $33.6 billion CRE portfolio. Santander reports $9.4 billion of multifamily loans and $4.4 billion of construction and land loans within a $17.1 billion CRE book. These differences help borrowers distinguish institutions whose balance sheets show greater activity in one category from those with a broader mix.

    CRE share of loans and investor CRE to equity provide complementary measures of concentration. Citibank reports CRE at 3.4% of total loans and investor CRE to equity of 0.15x. International Bank of Commerce reports 66.6% and 2.13x. A high ratio relative to other banks in the table can signal that an institution may be selective as it manages exposure. A low ratio can indicate more balance sheet room in relative terms, but it does not establish lending intent. The measures are most useful when read alongside absolute construction balances, annual growth and loan mix rather than treated as stand-alone approval indicators.

    Compare banks with other sources of construction capital

    The table covers banks reporting to the FDIC, not every source of commercial real estate debt. Borrowers may also consider debt funds, life companies, CMBS, agency lenders and SBA lenders where those channels fit the transaction. These lender types do not appear in bank call reports, so their absence from the ranking should not be read as a statement about their activity. An out of state bank may also be relevant when it has a local branch or lending presence. The table reports bank headquarters, while the FDIC Summary of Deposits 2026 supplies the separate deposit office framework used for geographic research.

    Comparing several sources matters because reported portfolio scale does not reveal current terms, execution requirements or whether a lender is active in a specific submarket. A bank with a large construction balance may be a logical call, while a smaller bank with a locally relevant CRE mix may also merit consideration. Nonbank sources can broaden the search beyond institutions constrained by bank portfolio considerations. Borrowers can use the ranking to assemble an initial bank list, then compare that group with applicable nonbank channels. The objective is to test multiple sources against the same project facts rather than infer availability from a single balance sheet measure.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    Which bank is the largest construction loan lender in 2026?

    JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. ranks first, reporting $18.8 billion in construction, land development and other land loans as of June 30, 2026. It also reports $179.8 billion in total CRE loans, including $107.3 billion in multifamily, $14.4 billion in owner occupied and $39.4 billion in investor nonfarm nonresidential loans. Its CRE portfolio increased +4.6% from the prior year and represented 11.5% of total loans. The ranking reflects reported balance sheet holdings, so it identifies scale rather than the terms or availability of a current construction loan program.

    Does the construction loan ranking include land loans?

    Yes. The FDIC Call Report category used for this ranking includes construction, land development and other land loans. The table therefore helps answer which banks report the largest land lending balances as well as construction balances. Citibank and Fifth Third each report $8.0 billion in the category, placing them fifth and sixth, respectively. The category is broader than financing for buildings already under construction, so borrowers should not assume that every reported dollar represents the same project type. A lender must still confirm whether a specific land or development request fits its current lending criteria.

    How current are the bank construction lending figures?

    The bank balances are as of June 30, 2026 and come from FDIC Call Reports, formally the Reports of Condition and Income, schedule RC-C. BestCRE also uses the FDIC Summary of Deposits 2026 for deposit office information. Call reports provide a consistent basis for comparing regulated banks at the same reporting date, but they are a balance sheet snapshot rather than a live indication of loan availability. The table includes annual CRE change to show direction at that date. For example, Associated Bank reports +25.8% growth, while Banc of California reports -11.4%.

    Which banks show the fastest CRE growth in the ranking?

    Pinnacle Bank reports +123.7% annual CRE growth, the highest stated change among the ranked banks, followed by The Huntington National Bank at +109.8% and Fifth Third Bank at +104.4%. Banco Bilbao Vizcaya reports +84.1%. Growth can identify institutions adding CRE balances, but it should be interpreted with portfolio size and mix. Pinnacle reports $36.8 billion in total CRE loans and $5.9 billion in construction and land loans. Banco Bilbao Vizcaya reports $2.6 billion in total CRE loans, of which $2.3 billion is construction and land. Growth alone does not indicate current credit terms or project eligibility.

    What benchmark rates provide context for construction lending in 2026?

    As of Oct 26, 2026, the Prime rate was 7.00%, SOFR was 3.89%, the 5 year Treasury was 4.78%, the 10 year Treasury was 4.96% and Fed funds was 3.88%. These benchmarks provide market context, but the ranking does not report bank construction loan rates, spreads or fees. A bank’s reported construction balance also does not establish how it prices a specific transaction. Borrowers should request current proposals from several applicable lenders and compare the complete economics and structure. The benchmark date differs from the June 30, 2026 reporting date used for bank loan balances.

    More BestCRE lender rankings

    CRE lenders by state

    BestCRE rankings are editorially independent and built only from public regulatory filings; no bank pays for placement. Call report figures describe loans held on each bank’s balance sheet and do not show loan terms, rates or current appetite. BestCRE is not a lender and does not make loans. Benchmark rates are informational, not quotes. See our Legal Disclaimer and Compensation Disclosure.

  • Best CRE Lenders 2026: The 100 Largest Commercial Real Estate Bank Lenders

    Quick answerBestCRE ranks JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. first with $179.8 billion in commercial real estate loans, followed by Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. with $121.6 billion and Bank of America, N.A. with $79.9 billion. The ranking measures total construction and land, multifamily, owner occupied and investor nonfarm nonresidential loans reported by banks in FDIC Call Reports as of June 30, 2026. It identifies the 100 largest commercial real estate bank lenders by reported CRE loan volume.

    The 100 banks in BestCRE’s national ranking reported $1.80 trillion of commercial real estate loans as of June 30, 2026. That total includes $246.3 billion of construction and land loans, $457.0 billion of multifamily loans, $390.1 billion of owner occupied loans and $705.5 billion of investor nonfarm nonresidential loans. The ranking uses FDIC Call Reports, formally the Reports of Condition and Income, schedule RC-C. Headquarters information is paired with the FDIC Summary of Deposits 2026. Together, these records provide a consistent view of each bank’s reported CRE book, its composition, annual change and concentration relative to total loans and equity capital.

    The ranking is a starting point for borrowers, not a statement that every listed bank will finance every property or transaction. A large CRE book can indicate appetite and capacity to hold loans, while the category mix shows where a bank has been most active. Annual change identifies banks that are adding or reducing reported CRE balances. Concentration measures help put that activity in the context of the bank’s broader balance sheet. Bank lending remains relationship driven and local, so borrowers should consider branch presence, market coverage and an existing banking relationship before deciding which institutions to contact. BestCRE uses this national table as the hub for its state lender pages.

    Prime rate 7.00%SOFR 3.89%5 year Treasury 4.78%10 year Treasury 4.96%Fed funds 3.88%Benchmarks as of Oct 26, 2026

    The 100 largest CRE bank lenders

    RankBankHeadquartersTotal CRE loans ($M)Construction and land ($M)Multifamily ($M)Owner occupied ($M)Change, 1 yearCRE share of loans
    1JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.Columbus, OH$179,847$18,789$107,317$14,363+4.6%11.5%
    2Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.Sioux Falls, SD$121,623$12,464$26,549$17,825+0.3%12.2%
    3Bank of America, N.A.Charlotte, NC$79,906$9,681$8,465$24,700+6.1%6.6%
    4Truist BankCharlotte, NC$51,018$7,610$8,652$17,780+4.9%15.4%
    5U.S. Bank, N.A.Cincinnati, OH$50,718$9,378$14,458$9,005+10.2%12.3%
    6PNC Bank, N.A.Wilmington, DE$47,133$5,261$14,980$10,376+14.3%12.8%
    7First-Citizens Bank & Trust CompanyRaleigh, NC$38,808$7,338$2,967$16,840+0.9%25.7%
    8The Huntington National BankColumbus, OH$37,932$5,322$4,884$13,331+109.8%19.8%
    9Pinnacle BankNashville, TN$36,789$5,890$4,865$9,453+123.7%41.5%
    10Flagstar Bank, N.A.Hicksville, NY$35,271$1,370$26,922$2,509-17.5%57.6%
    11Manufacturers and Traders Trust CompanyBuffalo, NY$34,665$3,351$7,115$10,556+0.6%24.2%
    12Fifth Third Bank, N.A.Cincinnati, OH$33,581$7,971$4,143$11,997+104.4%18.7%
    13TD Bank, N.A.Wilmington, DE$30,408$4,311$6,714$6,837-3.6%18.4%
    14Valley National BankPassaic, NJ$30,353$2,484$9,034$7,688+5.2%57.8%
    15BMO Bank, N.A.Chicago, IL$28,802$4,486$3,158$8,136+3.8%20.3%
    16SouthState Bank, N.A.Winter Haven, FL$28,266$2,928$2,717$7,848+6.9%55.2%
    17Citizens Bank, N.A.Providence, RI$26,949$4,746$8,036$4,002-7.4%18.1%
    18Columbia BankRoseburg, OR$26,361$2,030$10,274$6,893+36.5%55.8%
    19Citibank, N.A.Sioux Falls, SD$26,036$7,993$8,259$845+2.9%3.4%
    20Capital One, N.A.Mclean, VA$24,111$1,952$6,939$1,226-2.2%5.3%
    21Zions Bancorporation, N.A.Salt Lake City, UT$23,684$3,223$3,562$8,635+2.0%37.9%
    22Old National BankEvansville, IN$23,021$2,446$5,855$5,966+3.2%45.3%
    23Webster Bank, N.A.STAMFORD, CT$22,551$1,695$7,695$2,434+5.8%39.0%
    24First Horizon BankMemphis, TN$22,518$1,632$3,722$8,789+0.2%34.2%
    25East West BankPasadena, CA$21,796$814$4,606$3,434+5.6%37.0%
    26CIBC Bank USAChicago, IL$18,426$2,120$3,990$4,438+22.1%42.5%
    27Bank OZKLittle Rock, AR$18,141$6,943$2,545$852-16.1%55.7%
    28KeyBank, N.A.Cleveland, OH$17,153$2,896$5,445$3,010+1.5%15.3%
    29Santander Bank, N.A.Wilmington, DE$17,133$4,384$9,375$955-7.7%29.0%
    30City National BankLos Angeles, CA$16,549$2,834$2,698$4,414+5.7%23.9%
    31Regions BankBirmingham, AL$16,257$2,808$3,875$5,383+7.0%16.3%
    32Atlantic Union BankRichmond City, VA$15,900$1,859$2,429$4,308+3.4%55.4%
    33Western Alliance BankPhoenix, AZ$15,781$4,085$649$1,465-3.1%24.1%
    34UMB Bank, N.A.Kansas City, MO$15,713$2,927$1,725$5,005+2.5%38.2%
    35Provident BankJersey City, NJ$14,672$723$3,807$2,900+4.1%73.2%
    36United BankFairfax, VA$14,204$3,336$2,437$2,171+3.2%56.7%
    37Goldman Sachs Bank USANew York, NY$13,518$4,183$2,238$118+5.2%5.4%
    38Glacier BankKalispell, MT$12,859$2,660$1,076$3,928+19.2%60.1%
    39First National Bank of PennsylvaniaGreenville, PA$12,016$2,660$885$3,308-4.7%33.4%
    40Banc of CaliforniaLos Angeles, CA$11,904$1,867$5,882$1,509-11.4%47.4%
    41Renasant BankTupelo, MS$11,354$2,013$1,158$3,221+4.0%58.4%
    42BOKF, N.A.Tulsa, OK$11,334$1,488$2,046$3,796+5.2%41.8%
    43City National Bank of FloridaMiami, FL$10,897$1,643$1,453$1,742+2.7%52.9%
    44Ameris BankAtlanta, GA$10,821$1,703$2,010$1,895+5.6%47.8%
    45WesBanco Bank, Inc.Wheeling, WV$10,779$1,690$1,739$3,047+3.8%55.2%
    46Frost BankSan Antonio, TX$10,734$2,736$239$4,370+9.0%46.7%
    47Simmons BankPine Bluff, AR$10,727$2,575$812$2,358+5.1%59.3%
    48Associated Bank, N.A.Green Bay, WI$10,594$2,546$2,463$1,575+25.8%29.0%
    49Rockland Trust CompanyRockland, MA$10,387$1,490$2,165$2,213+32.2%56.4%
    50Prosperity BankEl Campo, TX$10,365$3,144$680$2,593+19.1%41.4%
    51OceanFirst Bank, N.A.Toms River, NJ$10,244$739$2,361$1,612+74.7%62.9%
    52WaFd BankSeattle, WA$10,190$1,329$4,647$1,125+0.3%50.4%
    53Fulton Bank, N.A.Lancaster, PA$10,083$885$1,563$3,553+0.1%41.3%
    54United Community BankGreenville, SC$9,988$1,338$714$3,946+4.8%50.0%
    55Centennial BankConway, AR$9,940$2,780$1,270$1,838+12.5%58.3%
    56Eastern BankBoston, MA$9,932$516$3,534$1,634+27.1%42.6%
    57Cathay BankLos Angeles, CA$9,893$308$2,587$1,962+4.7%48.0%
    58Beacon Bank and TrustBoston, MA$9,595$379$2,239$1,785+229.8%53.8%
    59Morgan Stanley Bank, N.A.Salt Lake City, UT$9,473$259$701$213+6.4%8.2%
    60ServisFirst BankBirmingham, AL$9,353$1,565$1,401$2,665+9.6%64.5%
    61Hancock Whitney BankGulfport, MS$9,315$1,359$1,274$3,354+12.5%37.8%
    62MidFirst BankOklahoma City, OK$9,265$1,068$1,009$2,689+1.5%27.6%
    63Citizens Business Bank, N.A.Ontario, CA$9,149$214$1,235$2,823+43.6%76.1%
    64TowneBankPortsmouth, VA$8,969$1,321$865$2,496+22.8%57.9%
    65Bank of HopeLos Angeles, CA$8,920$213$1,144$3,138+4.6%59.3%
    66ConnectOne BankEnglewood Cliffs, NJ$8,856$856$3,679$1,732+9.7%74.6%
    67BankUnited, N.A.Miami Lakes, FL$8,629$613$1,136$1,753+6.3%36.1%
    68First Interstate BankBillings, MT$8,497$576$1,848$2,591-14.4%59.5%
    69Ally BankSandy, UT$7,995$519$98.0$4,527+18.5%5.6%
    70EverBank, N.A.Jacksonville, FL$7,983$110$4,856$311+9.7%21.5%
    71Popular BankNew York, NY$7,760$1,344$2,053$2,119+4.6%65.9%
    72Dime Commercial BankHauppauge, NY$7,619$83.6$3,116$1,648-10.7%71.2%
    73Banner BankWalla Walla, WA$7,532$1,697$1,032$2,501+4.1%62.7%
    74Mechanics BankWalnut Creek, CA$7,498$350$5,074$461+55.3%55.2%
    75Arvest BankFayetteville, AR$7,489$2,021$754$1,484+11.1%36.6%
    76Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSBWilmington, DE$7,355$989$1,183$1,856+2.7%54.5%
    77FirstBankNashville, TN$7,096$1,158$768$2,153+39.1%54.3%
    78Seacoast National BankStuart, FL$7,004$858$481$2,053+20.5%53.2%
    79Morgan Stanley Private Bank, N.A.Purchase, NY$6,931$0.0$1,514$90.0-5.4%3.7%
    80Apple BankNew York, NY$6,824$0.0$4,339$0.1+2.0%49.4%
    81Merchants Bank of IndianaCarmel, IN$6,783$1,995$3,329$746+3.8%39.1%
    82Busey BankChampaign, IL$6,480$1,027$1,090$1,433-2.0%49.1%
    83Customers BankMalvern, PA$6,436$193$2,661$1,871+22.7%35.7%
    84Optum Bank, Inc.Draper, UT$6,412$88.0$2,048$49.0+28.3%64.4%
    85The Northern Trust CompanyChicago, IL$6,399$713$1,489$1,012-0.8%14.6%
    86Metropolitan Commercial BankNew York, NY$6,358$482$414$3,139+17.1%86.7%
    87Trustmark BankJackson, MS$6,347$1,217$1,931$1,301-5.0%44.7%
    88Live Oak Banking CompanyWilmington, NC$6,163$970$26.2$3,037+17.3%46.9%
    89Enterprise Bank & TrustClayton, MO$6,154$663$384$2,386+5.3%51.7%
    90First United Bank and Trust CompanyDurant, OK$6,030$1,555$964$1,131+5.1%47.1%
    91First National Bank of OmahaOmaha, NE$6,021$1,882$610$1,515+6.7%24.6%
    92First BankSouthern Pines, NC$5,765$848$619$1,358+12.7%64.0%
    93Israel Discount Bank of New YorkNew York, NY$5,735$610$1,205$1,601+4.2%57.5%
    94Axos BankSan Diego, CA$5,610$1,221$1,183$184+8.5%22.5%
    95First Merchants BankMuncie, IN$5,523$881$767$1,369+30.5%35.4%
    96Burke & Herbert Bank & Trust CompanyAlexandria, VA$5,504$453$785$1,153+47.4%68.8%
    97The Central Trust BankJefferson City, MO$5,466$919$857$1,304+4.0%46.7%
    98Commerce BankKansas City, MO$5,365$1,498$290$1,425+8.2%25.7%
    99Bell BankFargo, ND$5,335$433$1,263$1,005+7.8%40.3%
    100First Hawaiian BankHonolulu, HI$5,318$730$944$914+4.3%36.5%

    Source: FDIC Call Reports as of June 30, 2026 (schedule RC-C). Dollar figures in millions. Change, 1 year compares total CRE loans with June 30, 2025. Bank names link to each bank’s FDIC record.

    The table begins with a wide separation among the largest portfolios. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. reported $179.8 billion of CRE loans, including $107.3 billion of multifamily loans. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. followed with $121.6 billion, led by $64.8 billion of investor nonfarm nonresidential loans. Bank of America, N.A. ranked third at $79.9 billion. Portfolio composition varies sharply farther down the table. Flagstar Bank, N.A. reported $26.9 billion of multifamily loans within a $35.3 billion CRE book, while Bank OZK reported $6.9 billion of construction and land loans within $18.1 billion. Growth also varied: Beacon Bank and Trust reported +229.8%, while Flagstar reported -17.5%. Concentration provides another distinction. Metropolitan Commercial Bank had CRE loans equal to 86.7% of total loans, while Citibank, N.A. reported 3.4%. Apple Bank’s investor CRE to equity ratio was 4.26x, high relative to other banks in the table.

    Use portfolio size, growth and local presence to build a call list

    Start with total CRE loans as a measure of reported portfolio scale. A larger book can show appetite for commercial real estate and capacity to hold loans, but it does not establish that a bank is active in every market or property type. Review the category columns before contacting a lender. A borrower seeking multifamily financing, for example, may find a bank with a smaller total CRE book but a more substantial multifamily balance more relevant than a higher-ranked institution whose portfolio is concentrated elsewhere.

    Use annual change as a second screen. Positive growth shows that reported CRE balances increased, while a negative figure shows contraction. It does not explain the cause or confirm current credit availability. Then consider headquarters and local branch presence. Bank lending is relationship driven, and local coverage can influence which office handles a request. Borrowers can use the national ranking to identify institutions with scale, then consult BestCRE’s state pages and the FDIC Summary of Deposits 2026 to narrow the list to banks with a relevant local footprint.

    Get your deal in front of the right lenders

    Tell BestCRE about the property, the loan amount and the timeline. We package the request and bring back term sheets from banks, debt funds, life companies, CMBS, agency and SBA lenders, so you compare more than the bank down the street.

    Tell Us About Your DealHow BestCRE Capital Works

    Loan mix and concentration distinguish broad lenders from specialists

    The four loan categories show where each institution’s reported CRE exposure sits. Construction and land reflects development-related balances. Multifamily captures apartment lending. Owner occupied loans are secured by properties used by the borrowing business, while investor nonfarm nonresidential covers income-producing commercial properties outside multifamily. Comparing these balances can separate diversified portfolios from books centered on one category. Mechanics Bank, for example, reported $5.1 billion of multifamily loans within $7.5 billion of total CRE loans, while Live Oak Banking Company reported $3.0 billion of owner occupied loans within $6.2 billion.

    Two concentration measures add balance-sheet context. CRE share of loans compares the reported CRE book with total loans. The investor CRE to equity ratio compares construction, multifamily and non owner occupied nonfarm loans with total equity capital. Regulators watch concentration above roughly 3x of capital, but the ratio is not a lending quote or an approval threshold. A high figure relative to other banks in the table can signal that an institution may be selective about additional exposure. A low figure may indicate more balance-sheet room, but it does not establish appetite for a particular property, borrower or market.

    Borrowers should compare bank and nonbank capital sources

    The national table is not limited to banks headquartered in a borrower’s state. An institution based elsewhere may operate local branches, and its headquarters location alone does not define its lending territory. The FDIC Summary of Deposits 2026 can help identify branch presence. Borrowers should compare several banks because reported portfolio size cannot show current underwriting priorities, property eligibility or whether the appropriate lending team covers the market. Existing deposit and treasury relationships may also shape which banks are practical prospects, even when another institution ranks higher nationally.

    Nonbank lenders do not appear in bank Call Reports. Debt funds, life companies, CMBS lenders, agency lenders and SBA lenders therefore sit outside this ranking even though they can be alternatives for commercial property financing. Each source serves a different part of the market, and the table does not compare their programs or terms. A borrower can use the bank ranking to identify institutions with relevant reported experience, then compare those candidates with suitable nonbank sources. Reviewing several sources provides a broader view of available capital than relying on a single rank, headquarters location or portfolio category.

    For how banks, debt funds and CMBS lenders are pricing loans this month, see the Best CRE Capital Markets Report, updated weekly.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    What loans count toward the BestCRE bank ranking?

    BestCRE ranks total commercial real estate loans reported in FDIC Call Reports as of June 30, 2026. The total combines construction and land, multifamily, owner occupied and investor nonfarm nonresidential loans from schedule RC-C. Across the 100 ranked banks, those categories totaled $246.3 billion, $457.0 billion, $390.1 billion and $705.5 billion, respectively. The resulting table total was $1.80 trillion. The definition is intended to make bank portfolios comparable using standardized regulatory reporting. It does not include every loan secured by real estate, and it does not include loans held by nonbank lenders.

    Why is JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. ranked first?

    JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. ranked first because it reported the largest total CRE loan balance in the table at $179.8 billion as of June 30, 2026. Its portfolio included $18.8 billion of construction and land loans, $107.3 billion of multifamily loans, $14.4 billion of owner occupied loans and $39.4 billion of investor nonfarm nonresidential loans. Its reported CRE balance increased +4.6% year over year and represented 11.5% of total loans. The ranking reflects reported portfolio size only. It does not grade loan pricing, service, approval likelihood or suitability for a specific transaction.

    Which ranked bank reported the fastest CRE growth?

    Beacon Bank and Trust reported the largest positive year-over-year change shown in the table at +229.8%. Its total CRE loans were $9.6 billion as of June 30, 2026, including $378.6 million of construction and land loans, $2.2 billion of multifamily loans, $1.8 billion of owner occupied loans and $5.2 billion of investor nonfarm nonresidential loans. Annual growth is useful for identifying changes in reported balances, but it does not show the cause of the increase or confirm that the same pace continued after the reporting date. Borrowers should treat it as a directional screen rather than a current credit offer.

    What interest rate context applies to this ranking?

    The loan balances are dated June 30, 2026, while the benchmark rates are dated Oct 26, 2026. On that later date, the Prime rate was 7.00%, SOFR was 3.89%, the 5 year Treasury was 4.78%, the 10 year Treasury was 4.96% and Fed funds was 3.88%. These benchmarks provide market context but are not the rates offered by any bank in the ranking. FDIC Call Reports do not establish pricing for a particular borrower or property. Actual financing costs cannot be inferred from a bank’s rank, portfolio mix, annual growth or concentration figures.

    How much of the bank CRE market does the table cover?

    The 100 ranked banks reported $1.80 trillion of CRE loans as of June 30, 2026. All 4,167 banks reported $3.07 trillion. Those totals show that the table captures the largest individual bank portfolios while the broader market also includes many institutions outside the ranking. A bank below the cutoff may still be relevant in a specific state or local market. The national rank therefore measures reported volume, not the completeness of a borrower’s lender set. BestCRE’s state pages can provide a more geographically focused view, while FDIC Call Reports remain the underlying source for bank-level balances.

    More BestCRE lender rankings

    CRE lenders by state

    BestCRE rankings are editorially independent and built only from public regulatory filings; no bank pays for placement. Call report figures describe loans held on each bank’s balance sheet and do not show loan terms, rates or current appetite. BestCRE is not a lender and does not make loans. Benchmark rates are informational, not quotes. See our Legal Disclaimer and Compensation Disclosure.

  • Best CRE Lenders in Arizona 2026: Commercial Real Estate Bank Lenders Ranked

    Quick answerBestCRE ranks Western Alliance Bank first among commercial real estate lenders headquartered in Arizona, with $15.8 billion in total CRE loans. Southwest Heritage Bank follows with $559.5 million, and BNC National Bank ranks third with $430.4 million. The ranking measures total commercial real estate loans reported in FDIC Call Reports as of June 30, 2026. It covers 11 Arizona headquartered banks, which collectively reported $17.4 billion in CRE loans.

    Arizona headquartered banks reported $17.4 billion in commercial real estate loans as of June 30, 2026, according to FDIC Call Reports. BestCRE ranks all 11 of those institutions by total CRE loans, including construction and land, multifamily, owner occupied property, and investor nonfarm nonresidential loans. Western Alliance Bank dominates the ranking with $15.8 billion and holds national rank 33. Southwest Heritage Bank follows with $559.5 million, while BNC National Bank reports $430.4 million. The table is a measure of reported balance sheet exposure, not a judgment about pricing, execution, credit standards, or the suitability of any lender for a particular transaction.

    The distinction between headquarters and lending presence matters. This ranking covers banks headquartered in Arizona, while institutions based elsewhere can serve Arizona borrowers through local branches. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., for example, has 186 Arizona branches and $50.2 billion in deposits in the state, but its $179.8 billion CRE portfolio covers all states. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. has 153 Arizona branches and $39.4 billion in state deposits, while Bank of America, N.A. has 104 branches and $35.5 billion. Those institutions are relevant lending contacts, but their nationwide CRE balances cannot be treated as Arizona loan totals.

    Prime rate 7.00%SOFR 3.89%5 year Treasury 4.78%10 year Treasury 4.96%Fed funds 3.88%Benchmarks as of Oct 26, 2026

    Arizona banks ranked by total CRE loans

    RankBankHeadquartersTotal CRE loans ($M)Construction and land ($M)Multifamily ($M)Owner occupied ($M)Change, 1 yearCRE share of loans
    1Western Alliance BankPhoenix, AZ$15,781$4,085$649$1,465-3.1%24.1%
    2Southwest Heritage BankScottsdale, AZ$559$66.5$47.2$152+8.7%79.1%
    3BNC National BankGlendale, AZ$430$35.1$35.9$144+0.2%58.9%
    4Goldwater Bank, N.A.Phoenix, AZ$174$88.1$14.2$14.9+25.8%38.1%
    5Integro BankPhoenix, AZ$115$10.4$11.9$73.7+93.6%70.3%
    6Gateway Commercial BankMesa, AZ$97.8$22.7$3.5$53.1+11.1%64.4%
    7Gainey Business BankScottsdale, AZ$49.2$13.3$0.0$14.9+65.6%51.1%
    8West Valley National BankGoodyear, AZ$42.7$0.3$1.0$23.3+3.6%65.0%
    9Zenith Bank & TrustScottsdale, AZ$41.9$3.6$5.6$12.3+156.6%54.4%
    10Mission BankKingman, AZ$36.7$2.5$1.1$21.1-4.0%51.6%
    11Scottsdale Community BankScottsdale, AZ$26.8$2.4$1.5$7.2+67.8%26.3%

    Source: FDIC Call Reports as of June 30, 2026 (schedule RC-C). Dollar figures in millions. Change, 1 year compares total CRE loans with June 30, 2025. Bank names link to each bank’s FDIC record.

    Western Alliance Bank accounts for most of the reported CRE volume, with $15.8 billion of the table total of $17.4 billion. Its portfolio includes $9.6 billion of investor nonfarm nonresidential loans and $4.1 billion of construction and land loans. Southwest Heritage Bank ranks second at $559.5 million and has the highest CRE share of loans among the ranked banks at 79.1%. BNC National Bank ranks third with $430.4 million and reported growth of +0.2%. Growth varies sharply among smaller institutions. Zenith Bank & Trust reported +156.6%, Integro Bank reported +93.6%, and Scottsdale Community Bank reported +67.8%, while Western Alliance Bank reported -3.1%. Concentration also differs. Southwest Heritage Bank has an investor CRE to equity ratio of 3.33x, high relative to the other banks in the table, compared with 1.20x at Mission Bank.

    Out of state banks with branches in Arizona

    BankHeadquarters stateBranches in ArizonaDeposits in Arizona ($M)Total CRE loans, all states ($M)
    JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.Ohio186$50,163$179,847
    Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.South Dakota153$39,359$121,623
    Bank of America, N.A.North Carolina104$35,468$79,906
    Zions Bancorporation, N.A.Utah56$7,281$23,684
    PNC Bank, N.A.Delaware75$6,425$47,133
    BMO Bank, N.A.Illinois62$4,962$28,802
    U.S. Bank, N.A.Ohio56$4,926$50,718
    MidFirst BankOklahoma22$4,421$9,265
    UMB Bank, N.A.Missouri13$3,695$15,713
    Bell BankNorth Dakota4$2,163$5,335
    Glacier BankMontana15$1,913$12,859
    BOKF, N.A.Oklahoma4$1,801$11,334

    Source: FDIC Summary of Deposits 2026. Deposits and branches are for Arizona only; CRE loans are bank wide.

    The ranking is a starting point for a loan search

    Total CRE loans provide a practical first screen because the size of a bank’s book can indicate its demonstrated appetite and capacity to hold commercial property debt. Western Alliance Bank, with $15.8 billion, operates at a different reported scale from Southwest Heritage Bank at $559.5 million or Gateway Commercial Bank at $97.8 million. Size alone does not establish whether a bank will pursue a particular property, borrower, structure, or location. Borrowers should use the ranking to identify plausible contacts, then confirm current interest directly with each institution.

    The remaining columns help narrow that contact list. Loan mix indicates where each bank has been most active, year over year growth identifies institutions adding or reducing CRE balances, and concentration may signal that a bank will be selective about additional exposure. Bank lending is relationship driven and local, so headquarters, branch access, existing deposits, and familiarity with the borrower can matter to the search. A useful process compares several institutions whose reported portfolios align with the requested property type rather than treating rank as a complete credit or pricing decision.

    Get your deal in front of the right lenders in Arizona

    Tell BestCRE about the property, the loan amount and the timeline. We package the request and bring back term sheets from banks, debt funds, life companies, CMBS, agency and SBA lenders, so you compare more than the bank down the street.

    Tell Us About Your DealHow BestCRE Capital Works

    Loan mix and concentration reveal distinct balance sheet profiles

    The ranked banks collectively report $4.3 billion in construction and land loans, $770.6 million in multifamily loans, $2.0 billion in owner occupied loans, and $10.3 billion in investor nonfarm nonresidential loans. Western Alliance Bank is the largest holder in each reported category, including $648.7 million in multifamily and $1.5 billion in owner occupied loans. Among smaller banks, Southwest Heritage Bank reports $293.5 million in investor nonfarm nonresidential loans, while BNC National Bank reports $215.7 million in that category and $143.7 million in owner occupied loans.

    Some portfolios lean toward different property and borrower segments. Goldwater Bank, N.A. reports $88.1 million in construction and land loans within a $174.3 million CRE book. Integro Bank reports $73.7 million in owner occupied loans within its $114.9 million total. Investor CRE to equity ratios provide another view of concentration. Southwest Heritage Bank reports 3.33x, West Valley National Bank reports 2.88x, and Goldwater Bank, N.A. reports 2.67x. Those ratios are high relative to several peers in the table, but they do not establish whether a bank will approve or decline a new request.

    Arizona borrowers have options beyond locally headquartered banks

    Large banks headquartered elsewhere maintain substantial Arizona branch networks and deposits. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. has 186 branches and $50.2 billion in Arizona deposits. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. has 153 branches and $39.4 billion, and Bank of America, N.A. has 104 branches and $35.5 billion. Other branch based options include Zions Bancorporation, N.A. with 56 branches and $7.3 billion in state deposits, PNC Bank, N.A. with 75 branches and $6.4 billion, and BMO Bank, N.A. with 62 branches and $5.0 billion.

    Borrowers can also compare banks with debt funds, life companies, CMBS lenders, agency lenders, and SBA lenders. These nonbank sources do not appear in FDIC bank call reports, so the ranking cannot represent the full financing market. Each source evaluates transactions under a different mandate, and availability can differ by property type, requested structure, and borrower profile. Comparing several bank and nonbank sources gives borrowers a broader view of potential financing paths. The appropriate contact list should reflect the asset and request, not simply the size of an institution’s reported CRE portfolio.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    How did BestCRE rank Arizona commercial real estate lenders?

    BestCRE ranked banks headquartered in Arizona by total commercial real estate loans reported as of June 30, 2026. The source is FDIC Call Reports, formally the Reports of Condition and Income, schedule RC-C. Deposit and branch information comes from the FDIC Summary of Deposits 2026. The ranking includes 11 Arizona headquartered banks with a combined $17.4 billion in CRE loans. It does not rank individual originations, Arizona property loans alone, approval volume, pricing, or service. A bank’s reported total is its balance sheet CRE exposure under the call report categories.

    Which Arizona bank has the largest commercial real estate loan portfolio?

    Western Alliance Bank ranks first with $15.8 billion in total CRE loans as of June 30, 2026, placing it at national rank 33. Its reported book includes $4.1 billion in construction and land loans, $648.7 million in multifamily loans, $1.5 billion in owner occupied loans, and $9.6 billion in investor nonfarm nonresidential loans. CRE represents 24.1% of its total loans, and its investor CRE to equity ratio is 1.80x. Its CRE balance changed -3.1% year over year.

    Which Arizona banks reported the strongest CRE growth?

    Zenith Bank & Trust reported the highest year over year CRE change in the ranking at +156.6%, bringing its total CRE loans to $41.9 million. Integro Bank followed at +93.6% with a $114.9 million CRE portfolio. Scottsdale Community Bank reported +67.8% and $26.8 million, while Gainey Business Bank reported +65.6% and $49.2 million. Growth identifies banks that added reported balances, but it does not show whether the increase came from new originations, purchased loans, repayments, sales, or other balance sheet movements.

    What interest rate benchmarks were current for CRE borrowers?

    As of Oct 26, 2026, the Prime rate was 7.00%, SOFR was 3.89%, the 5 year Treasury was 4.78%, the 10 year Treasury was 4.96%, and Fed funds was 3.88%. These benchmarks provide market context but are not bank quotes or indications of the final cost available to a specific borrower. The FDIC ranking measures reported loan balances as of June 30, 2026 and does not disclose the rates, spreads, fees, maturities, amortization, collateral requirements, or other terms attached to those loans.

    Do national bank CRE totals show how much they lend in Arizona?

    No. Call report CRE totals for an out of state bank cover its entire institution, not only loans secured by Arizona properties. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. reports $179.8 billion in CRE loans across all states and has 186 Arizona branches. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. reports $121.6 billion across all states and has 153 Arizona branches. The FDIC Summary of Deposits identifies their local branches and deposits, but those figures do not allocate CRE lending by state. Borrowers can treat branch presence as evidence of local access, while confirming current lending interest directly.

    More BestCRE lender rankings

    CRE lenders by state

    BestCRE rankings are editorially independent and built only from public regulatory filings; no bank pays for placement. Call report figures describe loans held on each bank’s balance sheet and do not show loan terms, rates or current appetite. BestCRE is not a lender and does not make loans. Benchmark rates are informational, not quotes. See our Legal Disclaimer and Compensation Disclosure.

  • Aarden AI Review: Land valuation for emerging infrastructure uses

    Aarden AI Review: Land valuation for emerging infrastructure uses

    BestCRE 9AI Score

    56/100 · Watch

    Aarden AI ranks #558 of 579 commercial real estate AI tools scored on the 9AI Framework. Nine dimensions, each scored out of 10: CRE relevance, data quality, ease of adoption, output accuracy, integration fit, pricing transparency, support, innovation and market reputation.

    Aarden AI is a land intelligence and valuation platform for institutional landowners, developers, and capital allocators evaluating parcels for data centers, clean energy, transmission, storage, conservation, carbon credits, and other land dependent uses. It changes an early stage CRE workflow that is commonly fragmented across appraisals, site screening, infrastructure studies, market research, and specialist consultants. Instead of treating current use as the natural starting point, the platform examines competing future uses and estimates where a parcel may have greater strategic or financial value.

    For a CRE principal, the practical appeal is portfolio triage. A large land portfolio can contain acreage whose highest potential value is not visible in rent rolls, agricultural income, comparable sales, or a conventional appraisal. Aarden says it combines infrastructure and nature data, market trends, community interests, machine learning models, and valuation methods to assess potential returns. That could help an owner decide which properties deserve deeper diligence and which possible uses are unlikely to justify further spending.

    The limitation is evidence. Aarden emerged from stealth with $4 million in 2025, but the vendor does not publish pricing, named customer results, model validation statistics, implementation timelines, or detailed integration documentation. Its public positioning explains the decision problem more clearly than it documents the operating product. Buyers therefore cannot infer repeatable accuracy, portfolio scale, or workflow maturity from public information alone. Any serious evaluation should require a live demonstration using parcels the buyer already understands.

    BestCRE analysis: Aarden is more specialized than a general mapping or property data product, and its multiuse valuation concept addresses a real blind spot in land investment. It is nevertheless CRE adjacent rather than a complete brokerage or transaction platform. It does not publicly present deal rooms, contact management, listings, document execution, commission workflows, or transaction administration. The right buying posture is a controlled paid pilot, with outputs tested against internal underwriting and specialist diligence before the platform influences an acquisition, disposition, lease, or development commitment.

    What Aarden AI Does and How It Works

    Aarden starts with an area of interest and evaluates the parcels inside it through multiple possible uses. Its stated inputs include infrastructure and nature data, market trends, policy changes, and community interests. The platform then applies machine learning models and valuation methodologies to estimate potential returns for each parcel. Relevant scenarios can include solar generation, data centers, electric transmission, energy storage, conservation, and carbon credits. This is broader than a standard appraisal, which normally estimates value for a defined interest and effective date rather than continuously comparing a wide set of emerging uses.

    The intended output is dynamic valuation analysis that can change as markets, policies, and use cases evolve. For a portfolio owner, that implies recurring monitoring rather than a single report placed in a file. The product is positioned to identify parcels worth buying, selling, holding, or leasing and to compare the value of alternative paths. Public materials do not specify the geographic resolution, refresh frequency, forecast horizon, discount rate controls, confidence intervals, or treatment of development costs. Those details matter because infrastructure proximity alone does not establish interconnection capacity, entitlement feasibility, water availability, community acceptance, or executable demand.

    In the transaction workflow, Aarden appears best suited to hypothesis generation and prioritization. An investment team could use it to rank acreage, identify an unexpected use, and frame questions for engineers, brokers, appraisers, utilities, environmental consultants, attorneys, or prospective tenants. It should not be treated as a substitute for those parties based on current public evidence. BestCRE analysis: the product is most valuable before expensive diligence begins and again during portfolio review, when the owner needs a consistent way to compare choices. Its value declines if the buyer expects a conventional brokerage system, verified listing marketplace, final appraisal, engineering study, or closing platform. The vendor does not publish enough technical detail to determine how users inspect source lineage, adjust assumptions, export models, or document changes between valuation runs.

    9AI Framework: Dimension by Dimension Analysis

    CRE Relevance: 7/10

    Aarden earns a 7 for CRE relevance. Its work sits directly beside land acquisition, disposition, leasing, development, and portfolio strategy, particularly where alternative uses can materially change parcel value. The platform addresses a specific problem for owners whose holdings may support data centers, solar projects, transmission, storage, conservation, or carbon programs. That is more relevant to CRE decision making than a general artificial intelligence assistant or generic geographic information system. However, Aarden remains CRE adjacent rather than a full transaction product. It does not publicly offer brokerage prospecting, listing distribution, comparable lease analysis, customer relationship management, document execution, or closing administration. BestCRE analysis: the platform can influence which land opportunity enters the pipeline and how it is framed, but other systems and advisers must carry the opportunity through diligence and execution.

    Data Quality and Sources: 7/10

    Aarden earns a 7 for data quality because its proposed analysis depends on combining infrastructure, environmental, market, policy, and community information that conventional property systems often keep separate. That breadth is valuable for evaluating land dependent projects, where a parcel can look attractive until a grid, ecological, permitting, or community constraint appears. The vendor also describes proprietary datasets and machine learning models. However, it does not publish a source catalog, geographic coverage table, update schedule, lineage controls, missing data policy, or independent audit of its inputs. Buyers should ask which records are authoritative, how conflicting sources are reconciled, and whether users can trace every material conclusion to its origin. BestCRE analysis: the conceptual data foundation is strong, but the lack of public documentation prevents a higher score. Quality must be verified market by market during diligence.

    Ease of Adoption: 6/10

    Aarden earns a 6 for ease of adoption. Its central workflow is understandable: define an area, compare parcels and alternative uses, then prioritize opportunities for deeper work. That structure should be accessible to investment and asset management teams already accustomed to maps, valuation scenarios, and portfolio reviews. Adoption may still require considerable setup because each institution has different return thresholds, ownership structures, risk policies, hold periods, and development assumptions. The vendor does not publish onboarding requirements, training materials, implementation duration, user roles, or administration features. It also is not clear whether analysts can modify assumptions directly or must rely on Aarden personnel. BestCRE analysis: a focused pilot involving a limited geography should be manageable, but enterprise adoption will depend on model transparency, repeatable exports, permissions, and the ability to fit existing investment committee processes.

    Output Accuracy: 6/10

    Aarden earns a 6 for output accuracy. The platform addresses a forecasting problem rather than a simple retrieval problem, so accuracy depends on both underlying records and uncertain future assumptions. Land value for a data center or energy project can change with utility capacity, interconnection timing, entitlements, construction costs, tax treatment, offtake demand, and local opposition. Aarden says its analysis adapts to shifting markets and policies, which is appropriate, but the vendor does not publish back tests, error rates, confidence ranges, appraisal comparisons, or independently verified case studies. Buyers should test whether rankings remain useful when critical assumptions change and whether the system distinguishes observed facts from modeled estimates. BestCRE analysis: the output can be decision support, but public evidence does not justify treating it as a final valuation opinion or a replacement for engineering, legal, environmental, and appraisal diligence.

    Integration and Workflow Fit: 4/10

    Aarden earns a 4 for integration. Public information describes the analytical proposition but does not identify application programming interfaces, standard connectors, bulk import formats, data warehouse support, single sign on, webhooks, or integrations with common CRE systems. It is therefore unclear how parcel results move into underwriting models, geographic information systems, customer relationship management platforms, document repositories, or investment committee reporting. A useful land intelligence product should preserve parcel identifiers, assumptions, dates, scenarios, and source references when information leaves the platform. Buyers should request an architecture review and a sample export before contracting. BestCRE analysis: Aarden may still work effectively as a focused research environment, especially during a pilot, but its public integration posture is underdeveloped. Institutions seeking automated portfolio monitoring should make data portability and refresh mechanics explicit contractual requirements.

    Pricing Transparency: 2/10

    Aarden earns a 2 for pricing transparency. The vendor does not publish subscription tiers, per user prices, parcel charges, portfolio minimums, implementation fees, data fees, pilot costs, or contract terms. The available path is to request a demonstration, which leaves buyers unable to estimate total cost before entering a sales process. Bespoke pricing can be reasonable for an emerging product that analyzes large land portfolios and varied use cases, but it transfers discovery work to the customer and makes competitor comparisons harder. Buyers should request a written breakdown covering platform access, included geographies, user limits, scenario volume, data refreshes, onboarding, exports, support, and renewal increases. BestCRE analysis: pricing should be evaluated against avoided diligence and improved prioritization, not against generic software seats. The absence of public figures warrants a low score regardless of the product’s potential value.

    Support and Reliability: 5/10

    Aarden earns a 5 for support. The company offers a demonstration request and appears to sell into institutional workflows where consultative onboarding is likely important. Beyond that, the vendor does not publish support hours, response targets, service levels, training options, customer success structure, knowledge base coverage, or escalation procedures. This matters because users must understand both the software and the limitations of modeled land valuations. A prompt answer from a knowledgeable analyst may be more valuable than generic technical support when an input or scenario changes an investment conclusion. Buyers should ask who handles methodology questions, whether onboarding includes portfolio calibration, and how disputed data is corrected. BestCRE analysis: direct attention may be a strength at a young company, but it cannot be assumed or scored as established service without published commitments or customer evidence. Contractual response terms are advisable for time sensitive transactions.

    Innovation and Roadmap: 8/10

    Aarden earns an 8 for innovation. Its strongest idea is to evaluate land as a set of competing future uses rather than extrapolating from current income or nearby sales alone. Combining infrastructure, natural systems, market conditions, policy signals, and community factors can expose option value that traditional parcel screening misses. The dynamic element is also meaningful because the attractiveness of data centers, storage, transmission, conservation, and energy projects can change faster than an appraisal cycle. The innovation is analytical, not merely conversational, and it targets a consequential allocation problem. BestCRE analysis: the concept is differentiated within land intelligence, although innovation does not establish accuracy or commercial readiness. The vendor must still show that scenario breadth produces better decisions rather than more attractive maps. Transparent assumptions, sensitivity testing, and longitudinal validation would turn a distinctive approach into a more defensible institutional product.

    Market Reputation: 5/10

    Aarden earns a 5 for market reputation. It emerged from stealth with $4 million in 2025 and remains a young company with limited public operating history. The vendor does not publish customer counts, named deployments, renewal rates, transaction volume influenced, acreage analyzed, or independently documented outcomes. Its investor backing and clear institutional positioning provide some credibility, but they do not substitute for referenceable users or proof across market cycles. Buyers evaluating a material portfolio decision should request customer references with similar land types, geographies, and internal workflows. They should also examine team experience, data rights, financial continuity, and procedures for preserving customer outputs if the relationship ends. BestCRE analysis: Aarden is credible enough to evaluate, but its reputation is still being established. The score stays within the appropriate range for an emerging vendor whose public customer evidence remains sparse.

    9AI Score Card Aarden AI
    56
    56 / 100
    Early Stage
    Land Intelligence
    Aarden AI
    Aarden AI evaluates parcels across data centers, energy, conservation, and other uses, giving institutional landowners a broader alternative to conventional appraisal.
    9 Dimensions, Scored 1 to 10
    1. CRE Relevance
    7/10
    2. Data Quality & Sources
    7/10
    3. Ease of Adoption
    6/10
    4. Output Accuracy
    6/10
    5. Integration & Workflow Fit
    4/10
    6. Pricing Transparency
    2/10
    7. Support & Reliability
    5/10
    8. Innovation & Roadmap
    8/10
    9. Market Reputation
    5/10
    BestCRE.com, 9AI Framework v2 Reviewed October 2026

    Who Should Use Aarden AI

    Aarden should interest institutional landowners with enough acreage to make systematic prioritization worthwhile. Timber, agriculture, infrastructure, conservation, and diversified real asset portfolios may contain parcels whose future use differs sharply from current operations. Investment teams evaluating data center, solar, storage, or transmission interest can use the platform to compare opportunities before commissioning costly technical studies. It also suits asset managers who need a recurring view of policy, market, and infrastructure changes rather than another static appraisal. The internal buyer should have authority over portfolio strategy and access to specialists who can challenge the model.

    Developers and capital allocators may also benefit when screening a broad geography for land dependent projects. The product could narrow a large candidate set and expose constraints or alternative uses early in the funnel. BestCRE analysis: the strongest customer is not a small broker seeking contacts or listings. It is a sophisticated principal with repeat land decisions, internal underwriting capability, and sufficient transaction value to justify validating a new analytical layer. Such buyers should start with known parcels, compare Aarden’s conclusions with prior diligence, and define success through ranking quality, research time saved, and useful opportunities identified.

    Who Should Not Use Aarden AI

    Aarden is a poor fit for teams seeking a complete brokerage, marketing, or transaction management system. It does not publicly present listing syndication, prospect databases, pipeline management, electronic signatures, commission accounting, or closing workflows. A broker whose central need is owner contact information, comparable transactions, or campaign execution will find more direct value in established CRE data and relationship platforms. Small owners with only one straightforward parcel may also struggle to justify an institutional analysis product whose pricing is undisclosed.

    The platform should not be purchased as a replacement for an appraisal, title review, survey, entitlement opinion, environmental assessment, interconnection study, engineering report, or legal advice. Its results concern potential uses that remain subject to technical and commercial uncertainty. BestCRE analysis: organizations unwilling to inspect assumptions or validate outputs should wait. The same applies to buyers requiring documented integrations, fixed public pricing, extensive customer references, or statistically published accuracy before procurement. Aarden may mature into those requirements, but the vendor does not currently publish enough evidence to confirm them.

    Pricing and ROI Analysis

    Aarden does not publish pricing. There are no public subscription tiers, per seat rates, parcel fees, implementation charges, minimum commitments, or standard pilot terms. Prospective buyers must request a demonstration and obtain a proposal. Procurement should require the proposal to separate software access, proprietary data, portfolio setup, training, custom analysis, exports, ongoing refreshes, and support. It should also clarify geographic limits, user rights, renewal terms, ownership of uploaded information, and continued access to prior results after cancellation. Without those details, two apparently similar proposals may represent materially different products.

    BestCRE analysis: ROI should be calculated from the decisions improved, not from broad claims about land appreciation. A simple model is annual platform cost divided by the expected value of avoided diligence, analyst time saved, and incremental opportunities that survive validation. For example, a buyer can estimate hours saved per screening exercise, multiply those hours by its fully loaded labor cost, then add only the probability weighted value of decisions demonstrably influenced by Aarden. The purchase case is credible if conservative annual benefits exceed the full first year cost by the institution’s required return threshold. Buyers should exclude speculative project value and insist on a pilot baseline so the benefit is measured rather than asserted.

    Integration and CRE Tech Stack Fit

    Aarden should sit upstream of the core CRE stack. Its parcel rankings and scenarios would ideally feed geographic information systems, underwriting workbooks, data warehouses, document repositories, and investment committee materials. Ownership and transaction teams also need stable parcel identifiers so conclusions can be matched with title, lease, environmental, engineering, and broker records. The vendor does not publish named integrations or technical documentation, so buyers should not assume automated connectivity. A sample export should be reviewed for assumptions, source references, timestamps, and scenario detail.

    BestCRE analysis: the safest initial architecture is a contained research workflow with controlled exports and human review. Institutions can then determine whether the platform produces information worth integrating. Before broader deployment, technology teams should assess authentication, permissions, audit history, data retention, bulk ingestion, refresh behavior, and application programming interface availability. Aarden must also explain how customer data is separated and whether model outputs can be reproduced after an input changes. If results arrive only as presentation files, adoption will remain dependent on manual reentry. Structured data access would materially improve its fit with institutional portfolio management.

    Competitive Landscape

    Deepblocks is the closest alternative for teams that want data driven site selection and development feasibility within a more conventional real estate development context. Acres is a stronger comparison for land mapping, ownership research, parcel intelligence, and collaboration across rural property workflows. LandScout AI is relevant where the primary need is finding and screening land opportunities. Each alternative approaches the problem from a different starting point, so buyers should compare the exact parcel coverage, source transparency, scenario controls, and export quality rather than treating land intelligence as a uniform category.

    Aarden differentiates itself through cross use valuation. Its proposition is not merely to locate land, but to compare potential paths such as data centers, solar, transmission, storage, conservation, and carbon credits. That makes it particularly interesting to institutions deciding what an existing portfolio could become. Deepblocks may be preferable when development feasibility and zoning analysis dominate. Acres may be preferable when ownership information, mapping, and day to day land operations matter most. LandScout AI may suit teams whose principal challenge is sourcing candidates rather than managing option value.

    Broader CRE platforms such as CommercialEdge or CompStak serve different needs. They offer market and transaction intelligence relevant to established commercial property sectors, while Aarden focuses on land dependent possibilities that may not yet resemble conventional CRE. BestCRE analysis: Aarden should be evaluated as a specialist analytical layer, not as a replacement for market data, brokerage systems, appraisal work, or technical diligence. A useful trial should run the same parcels through Aarden and at least one parcel intelligence alternative, then compare insight quality, traceability, analyst effort, and decisions changed.

    The Bottom Line

    Aarden merits a pilot for institutional owners and allocators that repeatedly evaluate land for infrastructure, energy, conservation, or data center uses. Its cross use approach addresses a genuine weakness in static appraisal and single purpose site screening. The concept is distinctive, the workflow is relevant, and the possible value per decision can be substantial. Still, the public record does not establish model accuracy, enterprise integration, service depth, or repeatable customer outcomes.

    Do not buy it on presentation quality or a promising parcel example. Require a test using familiar assets, documented sources, editable assumptions, sensitivity analysis, structured exports, and clear success criteria. Compare its recommendations with internal underwriting and independent specialists. BestCRE analysis: proceed when Aarden consistently improves prioritization before expensive diligence and the contract preserves data access. Wait if procurement requires public pricing, mature integrations, numerous reference customers, or an output that can stand alone as a formal valuation.

    About BestCRE

    BestCRE.com is the definitive authority on commercial real estate AI, analysis, and investment intelligence. Every article advances the platform’s mission to help CRE professionals identify, evaluate, and adopt the best tools and strategies in the industry. We benchmark platforms using the 9AI Framework so CRE leaders can compare tools with clear evidence. Explore the category map at 20 CRE sectors for deeper coverage across the CRE stack.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    What is Aarden AI?

    Aarden AI is a land intelligence and valuation platform designed for institutional landowners, developers, and capital allocators. It evaluates parcels across potential uses including data centers, solar generation, transmission, energy storage, conservation, and carbon credits. The company says it combines infrastructure and nature data, market trends, policy changes, community interests, machine learning models, and valuation methods to estimate potential returns. In a CRE workflow, it belongs near the beginning of portfolio strategy, acquisition screening, disposition review, and development diligence. It is not publicly positioned as a listing service, brokerage customer relationship manager, appraisal firm, engineering consultant, or closing platform. BestCRE analysis: its purpose is to identify and compare land options so a buyer can decide where deeper professional diligence is justified.

    How does Aarden AI compare with other land intelligence platforms?

    Aarden differs from many parcel platforms by emphasizing comparisons among multiple future uses, rather than focusing mainly on ownership records, mapping, listings, or one development type. Deepblocks is relevant for development feasibility and site analysis. Acres emphasizes parcel information, mapping, and land collaboration. LandScout AI is an alternative for finding and screening land opportunities. Aarden may be the better candidate when an institution already controls land and wants to compare data center, energy, infrastructure, conservation, and carbon scenarios. BestCRE analysis: buyers should test identical parcels across products and compare source traceability, assumption controls, exports, research time, and ranking quality. None of these tools should replace title, environmental, engineering, utility, entitlement, appraisal, or legal diligence.

    How much does Aarden AI cost?

    Aarden does not publish prices, subscription tiers, user charges, parcel fees, implementation costs, or standard contract terms. Buyers need to request a demonstration and proposal. The proposal should state which geographies, datasets, scenarios, users, exports, refreshes, training, and support services are included. It should also identify any portfolio minimum, onboarding charge, custom analysis fee, or renewal increase. BestCRE analysis: evaluate cost against measurable screening efficiency and decisions improved. Establish how long the current process takes, what external studies are commissioned too early, and how many viable opportunities reach deeper review. Then run a limited pilot and compare the measured benefit with the complete first year cost. Do not justify the purchase using the full speculative value of a future development.

    Who should use Aarden AI?

    Aarden is best suited to institutional landowners, real asset managers, developers, and capital allocators that make repeated decisions across substantial acreage. It is particularly relevant when land may support data centers, solar projects, electric transmission, storage, conservation, or carbon programs and the owner needs to compare those paths consistently. The ideal customer has internal analysts who can inspect assumptions and specialists who can validate utility, engineering, environmental, entitlement, and market conclusions. Small brokers seeking contact data, listings, marketing automation, or commission workflows should consider other products. Owners with a single uncomplicated parcel may also find the procurement effort difficult to justify. BestCRE analysis: the strongest fit is an experienced principal using Aarden to prioritize diligence, not to replace professional judgment.

    What should buyers expect from Aarden AI in the future?

    The most important future developments would be greater evidence and operational depth. Buyers should watch for published data coverage, source lineage, refresh schedules, validation methods, customer case studies, structured exports, application programming interfaces, security documentation, and clearer support commitments. Scenario monitoring could become increasingly useful as infrastructure constraints, market demand, and public policy change, but its value will depend on whether users can see why a parcel’s ranking moved. BestCRE analysis: Aarden has a credible opportunity to become an institutional decision layer for land portfolios if it proves that multiuse analysis leads to better prioritization over time. Until that evidence is public, buyers should treat future capability as uncommitted. Contract only for functions demonstrated today, and make roadmap items separate from the purchase decision.

    Related Reviews

    Compare Aarden AI with other Brokerage & Transactions tools BestCRE has scored: CompStak (76/100), DocuSign (72/100), Ten-X (72/100) and DealCloud (72/100). Browse every review in CRE Brokerage & Transactions, the full Best CRE AI Tools directory, or the 20 CRE Sectors hub.

  • XMAP Review: Parcel and location data for site assessment

    XMAP Review: Parcel and location data for site assessment

    BestCRE 9AI Score

    62/100 · Niche

    XMAP ranks #492 of 573 commercial real estate AI tools scored on the 9AI Framework. Nine dimensions, each scored out of 10: CRE relevance, data quality, ease of adoption, output accuracy, integration fit, pricing transparency, support, innovation and market reputation.

    XMap is a location intelligence and geospatial data company serving site assessment teams, data scientists, GIS professionals and business users. In commercial real estate, its practical role is to assemble the physical context around a prospective location before an analyst recommends a lease, purchase or development strategy. The platform combines parcel records with points of interest, mobility, road traffic and demographic information. That combination can reduce the manual work of collecting separate map layers, normalizing records and connecting nearby demand indicators to a property.

    The product is CRE adjacent rather than a complete commercial real estate platform. It can help identify parcel ownership, examine surrounding businesses, estimate access conditions and characterize movement around a site. It does not appear to replace underwriting software, lease comparable databases, property management systems or institutional investment research. A buyer should think of XMap as an input layer for location decisions, particularly when the organization already has analysts or software agents capable of interpreting structured geospatial data.

    XMap began with a generative AI approach to geospatial analysis and now presents itself as data infrastructure for software agents. Its technical proposition is more distinctive than a conventional map dashboard: customers can query data through REST, SQL, a Python SDK or an MCP server, while full datasets are offered in common analytical formats. This architecture could suit a team building repeatable screening workflows across many sites. It will be less compelling to a principal who wants a finished investment recommendation without configuring models, rules or data pipelines.

    BestCRE analysis: XMap has a credible product concept and a relevant parcel offering, but buyers should separate product claims from independently demonstrated performance. The vendor displays prominent company and university logos, yet it does not publicly explain which entities are paying customers, what products they use or how broad those deployments are. Public pricing, service commitments, parcel field coverage and measured accuracy by jurisdiction are also limited. XMap therefore belongs on a technical evaluation shortlist, not on an automatic approval list. A controlled test against known properties is essential before its data influences acquisition or site selection decisions.

    What XMAP Does and How It Works

    XMap organizes several types of location data into queryable layers. Its point of interest product covers businesses, landmarks and other places, with fields such as category, address, coordinates, hours, ratings and closure status. Its parcel product is described as providing boundaries, ownership records, transfer history, zoning and land value estimates across the United States. Separate mobility and traffic products address visitation patterns, origins, destinations, dwell time, vehicle flow, speed and congestion. Demographic information can be combined with these layers when assessing the trade area around a site.

    Users can obtain records through an API or download data for internal storage and analysis. The vendor advertises CSV, JSON, Parquet and GeoJSON formats, which cover common warehouse, data science and GIS workflows. Search methods include names, categories, geographic boundaries and radius queries. XMap also promotes SQL access, a Python SDK and MCP tools that allow an AI application to request a parcel lookup, nearby place search, mobility query, traffic flow result or demographic profile. For a CRE team, this means a developer could construct an automated screen that checks ownership, nearby competition, access and demand signals for every candidate address.

    The agent workflow is the more ambitious part of the product. XMap shows an application passing a parcel, a business objective, selected data layers and a search radius into an evaluation process. The application then returns a decision, confidence measure and suggested action. BestCRE analysis: those outputs should be treated as configurable analytical conclusions, not independent valuations or investment committee decisions. Their reliability depends on the underlying records, geographic coverage, model instructions and the buyer’s own decision criteria. XMap does not publicly provide enough methodology to establish how confidence is calibrated or how conflicting signals are resolved. Serious users should retain source fields, timestamps and reasoning records so analysts can audit every recommendation.

    9AI Framework: Dimension by Dimension Analysis

    CRE Relevance: 7/10

    XMap scores 7 for CRE relevance. Parcel ownership, boundaries, transfer records, zoning, nearby businesses, mobility and road access all matter in site selection and early property screening. The platform can support retail expansion, land sourcing, competitive mapping and trade area analysis. Its relevance is strongest before detailed underwriting, when a team needs to narrow a large candidate set. However, XMap is not a dedicated CRE transaction or asset management system. It does not publicly present a complete workflow for rent comparables, lease abstraction, operating statements, debt terms, capital planning or investment committee reporting. BestCRE analysis: buyers should regard it as a location data component that strengthens a CRE process, rather than a system that contains the entire process. That distinction keeps it below the leading dedicated CRE platforms in this category.

    Data Quality and Sources: 7/10

    XMap scores 7 for data quality because its product design addresses several basic requirements of useful geospatial data: structured fields, deduplication, geographic queries, refresh processes and downloadable records. The combination of parcel, place, mobility, traffic and demographic layers can provide richer context than a parcel file alone. Still, the vendor does not publish enough jurisdiction level documentation for a buyer to judge completeness, lineage and update timing across every field. Parcel ownership and zoning are especially difficult to normalize because source practices vary by county and municipality. BestCRE analysis: the breadth appears promising, but quality must be established market by market. A buyer should test known ownership changes, parcel geometry, zoning classifications, closed businesses and rural coverage. Contract terms should identify which fields are sourced, estimated or modeled, along with correction procedures and permitted uses.

    Ease of Adoption: 6/10

    XMap scores 6 for ease of adoption. Developers and data teams receive familiar access options, including REST, SQL, Python, MCP and downloadable files. Common formats should reduce conversion work, and geographic search patterns will be recognizable to GIS practitioners. Adoption is less straightforward for acquisition professionals who expect a finished interface, saved reports and governed approval workflows. The current positioning emphasizes infrastructure and agent tools more than a conventional CRE application. BestCRE analysis: a technically staffed organization could begin a proof of concept quickly, but production deployment will still require authentication, schema mapping, quality checks, business rules and user training. Buyers should also determine whether a live dashboard meets their needs or whether they must build one. The adoption score reflects accessible technical interfaces balanced against meaningful implementation work for ordinary CRE teams.

    Output Accuracy: 6/10

    XMap scores 6 for output accuracy. Structured location records can be checked against authoritative sources, and combining several independent layers may improve the context behind a site assessment. The difficulty lies in the gap between returning data and producing an accurate investment conclusion. XMap does not publish independent benchmark results for parcel matching, ownership currency, place closure detection, mobility estimates or automated recommendations. It also does not disclose enough about confidence calibration to let buyers interpret an agent generated score consistently. BestCRE analysis: raw factual outputs may be suitable after validation, while recommendation outputs deserve greater caution. Prospective customers should create a test set containing known parcels, recent transfers, complex ownership entities and sites with established traffic patterns. They should measure missing records, incorrect matches, stale attributes and decision consistency before allowing results into underwriting or executive reporting.

    Integration and Workflow Fit: 8/10

    XMap scores 8 for integration because it provides several practical ways to connect data with modern analytical systems. REST and SQL can feed internal applications and warehouses, Python supports data science workflows, while CSV, JSON, Parquet and GeoJSON cover common exchange requirements. MCP support is notable for teams building AI assistants that need callable location tools. These options make XMap easier to place behind an existing site selection interface or inside a batch screening process. BestCRE analysis: the architecture is one of the company’s strongest qualities. The remaining questions concern operational depth, including identity controls, usage monitoring, version management, service commitments and connectors to named CRE systems. Buyers should confirm these capabilities during diligence. Integration potential is high, but the effort required will depend on whether the customer wants a simple dataset import or a governed production agent.

    Pricing Transparency: 3/10

    XMap scores 3 for pricing transparency. The vendor does not publish standard subscription prices, record based fees, API usage rates, minimum commitments or enterprise license terms. Prospects are directed toward API access or a sales demonstration, leaving buyers unable to estimate cost from public information. The appropriate commercial model may differ across live queries, bulk downloads and redistribution rights, but those distinctions should still be explained clearly. BestCRE analysis: pricing opacity creates procurement friction and makes competitor comparisons difficult. Buyers should request a written schedule covering implementation, recurring access, query overages, historical data, geographic expansion, user limits, storage rights and termination access. They should also clarify whether derived outputs may be retained or shared with clients. The low score reflects missing public detail, not a conclusion that the product itself is expensive.

    Support and Reliability: 5/10

    XMap scores 5 for support. The public product information directs prospects toward demonstrations and API access, and the technical examples suggest that developer onboarding is an important part of the offering. However, the vendor does not publish enough detail about support tiers, response times, onboarding services, named account coverage, uptime commitments or data correction procedures. These gaps matter because location data problems often require investigation of a specific source, field and jurisdiction rather than a general software answer. BestCRE analysis: support may be responsive in practice, but a buyer cannot establish that from public evidence. Procurement teams should ask who handles parcel discrepancies, how urgent production incidents are escalated and whether schema changes receive advance notice. A paid pilot should include access to both technical support and a data specialist, with response expectations documented before wider deployment.

    Innovation and Roadmap: 8/10

    XMap scores 8 for innovation. The company is designing geospatial datasets as callable tools for software agents rather than treating them only as layers in a human operated map. MCP support, agent oriented schemas and the ability to combine parcel, mobility, traffic, place and demographic queries represent a thoughtful response to how analytical software is changing. The approach could let a CRE team screen sites through natural language while preserving structured machine responses underneath. BestCRE analysis: the concept is differentiated, but innovation should not be confused with proven decision quality. Similar workflows can also be assembled from established data providers, spatial databases and general AI models. XMap earns a high score for packaging and technical direction, while stopping short of the top tier because public evidence of production scale, governance and repeatable investment outcomes remains limited.

    Market Reputation: 6/10

    XMap scores 6 for market reputation, the highest appropriate level for a young company with limited public customer evidence. The company identifies a pre seed financing led by Shizen Capital and displays logos associated with major corporations, technology firms and academic institutions. Those signals create interest, but they do not establish contract size, deployment scope, retention or customer satisfaction. The vendor does not publish a substantial set of detailed CRE case studies with named users, methodologies and measured outcomes. BestCRE analysis: XMap has achieved visibility beyond an unknown startup, yet it has not built the documented market position of established data providers. Buyers should request references from customers using the same datasets, geography and access method under consideration. A reference for point of interest data is not automatically evidence that parcel or mobility coverage will meet institutional CRE requirements.

    9AI Score Card XMAP
    62
    62 / 100
    Emerging Tool
    CRE Market Analytics
    XMAP
    XMap combines parcel, place, mobility, traffic and demographic data through APIs designed for automated site assessment and location analysis.
    9 Dimensions, Scored 1 to 10
    1. CRE Relevance
    7/10
    2. Data Quality & Sources
    7/10
    3. Ease of Adoption
    6/10
    4. Output Accuracy
    6/10
    5. Integration & Workflow Fit
    8/10
    6. Pricing Transparency
    3/10
    7. Support & Reliability
    5/10
    8. Innovation & Roadmap
    8/10
    9. Market Reputation
    6/10
    BestCRE.com, 9AI Framework v2 Reviewed October 2026

    Who Should Use XMAP

    XMap best suits retail, restaurant, hospitality, health care and convenience store teams that evaluate many candidate locations and need a consistent geographic screen before committing analyst time. It also fits developers, land teams and brokers who want parcel ownership and surrounding demand context available in one technical workflow. The strongest buyer will have a GIS professional, data engineer or analytically capable real estate team that can test source records, define scoring rules and connect results to an existing pipeline.

    The platform is also worth considering for software companies building CRE research assistants, automated lead generation or location intelligence products. Its API, SQL, Python and MCP options give product teams several implementation paths, while downloadable formats support internal warehouses and model development. BestCRE analysis: value should be highest where the same evaluation is repeated across hundreds or thousands of locations. A buyer examining only a few assets each year may not recover implementation effort unless XMap replaces several separate data purchases.

    Who Should Not Use XMAP

    XMap is not the right primary system for a firm seeking rent comparables, lease data, operating benchmarks, debt information or complete property underwriting. It also does not appear designed as an out of the box transaction management platform. Small brokerage or investment teams without GIS or development capacity may find that a conventional map interface or a CRE research subscription produces usable answers with less configuration.

    Risk sensitive institutions should wait or conduct a tightly controlled pilot if they require publicly documented field accuracy, established support commitments and extensive named CRE references before procurement. Organizations needing authoritative title, survey, appraisal or zoning opinions should use the relevant professional and government sources. BestCRE analysis: XMap can inform investigation, but its records and automated recommendations should not serve as the sole basis for a purchase, lease or development decision.

    Pricing and ROI Analysis

    XMap does not publish standard pricing for its APIs, datasets, MCP access or enterprise deployments. It also does not publicly specify minimum contracts, query allowances, user limits, implementation charges or fees for historical records. Buyers should obtain separate quotes for live access and bulk delivery, since the economics and data rights can differ materially. The proposal should define included layers, geographic coverage, update frequency, overage treatment, permitted internal use, client distribution and retention after cancellation.

    BestCRE analysis: simple ROI math should begin with labor saved, not an assumed revenue increase. If an analyst earning an internally loaded rate of $75 per hour spends four hours assembling parcel, competitor and access data for each site, the manual cost is $300 per site. Screening 200 sites creates a $60,000 annual labor baseline. If XMap cuts that work in half, the theoretical labor benefit is $30,000 before implementation, validation and subscription costs. A buyer should replace these assumptions with its own volume and labor rate, then require the annual contract cost to fit comfortably below the verified benefit.

    Integration and CRE Tech Stack Fit

    XMap can fit into a CRE technology stack as a location data service behind a site selection model, data warehouse, GIS environment or internal research assistant. REST and Python support application development, SQL supports analyst access, and standard geospatial downloads can move into common mapping tools. MCP provides a direct route for approved AI agents to call specific location functions. Buyers should preserve source identifiers and observation dates when joining XMap records to properties, leases or opportunities.

    Implementation governance matters more than connector count. A CRE team should map parcel identifiers carefully, define address matching tolerances and prevent an agent from turning missing data into false certainty. Production contracts should address schema changes, version history, rate limits, security controls and service availability. BestCRE analysis: XMap is technically well positioned for a composable stack, but its public materials do not establish native integrations with major CRE systems. Expect some internal engineering or integration partner work.

    Competitive Landscape

    Regrid is the clearest parcel focused alternative. It has a long standing emphasis on nationwide parcel boundaries, standardized attributes and delivery for GIS and application use. ReportAll USA also concentrates on parcel data and may appeal to teams seeking established property layer access. ATTOM offers a broader property data proposition that can include ownership, transactions, valuation related attributes and other real estate records. Buyers prioritizing parcel history and conventional property intelligence should compare field definitions, source lineage and county coverage directly.

    Deepblocks is a closer alternative for development and site analysis because it connects property data with feasibility and market evaluation workflows. Placer.ai, previously scored 81 by BestCRE, is a stronger comparison when visitation patterns, trade areas and tenant performance are central. Cherre, scored 83, is more relevant to enterprises that need to connect and govern numerous real estate data sources. CoStar and Green Street address different research needs, with deeper emphasis on established CRE market information rather than agent ready geospatial infrastructure.

    BestCRE analysis: XMap differentiates itself through the combination of multiple physical world datasets and technical access designed for AI agents. It should win when a buyer wants programmable location intelligence and is prepared to build the final workflow. It should lose when the priority is an established user interface, extensive CRE comparables, documented institutional adoption or a narrowly authoritative parcel source. A proof of concept should include at least two alternatives using the same sites and acceptance tests.

    The Bottom Line

    Put XMap on the shortlist if your organization screens locations at scale and has the technical capacity to validate and operationalize geospatial data. Its parcel, place, mobility and traffic layers create a useful foundation, while its API and agent interfaces are ahead of many conventional data products. The appropriate first purchase is a limited pilot covering representative markets and difficult records, not an immediate enterprise rollout.

    Do not buy solely on the breadth claims, automated recommendation examples or displayed logos. Require field level documentation, customer references, contractual support terms and a transparent quote. BestCRE analysis: XMap is a promising infrastructure choice for technically mature site selection teams, but its value remains dependent on local data performance and disciplined implementation. Approval should follow only when the pilot beats current sources on completeness, analyst time and decision traceability.

    About BestCRE

    BestCRE.com is the definitive authority on commercial real estate AI, analysis, and investment intelligence. Every article advances the platform’s mission to help CRE professionals identify, evaluate, and adopt the best tools and strategies in the industry. We benchmark platforms using the 9AI Framework so CRE leaders can compare tools with clear evidence. Explore the category map at 20 CRE sectors for deeper coverage across the CRE stack.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    What is XMap for commercial real estate?

    XMap is a location intelligence and geospatial data platform that can support commercial real estate site assessment. It provides access to parcel, point of interest, mobility, road traffic and demographic information through technical interfaces and downloadable datasets. A CRE team might use it to identify ownership, map nearby competitors, examine access conditions or describe a prospective trade area before detailed underwriting. It is not a complete acquisition, leasing or asset management system, and it does not replace rent comparables, financial modeling or professional title and zoning review. BestCRE analysis: XMap is most accurately viewed as a programmable data layer that supplies physical context to an internal site selection process.

    How does XMap compare with Regrid and ATTOM?

    XMap places greater emphasis on combining multiple location layers with interfaces designed for applications and AI agents. Regrid is a direct alternative for standardized parcel boundaries and property attributes, while ATTOM offers a broad collection of property and transaction data. XMap may be more attractive when a buyer wants parcel information connected with nearby places, mobility and traffic in one programmable workflow. Regrid or ATTOM may be preferable when established property data coverage, conventional delivery and a longer operating record carry greater weight. BestCRE analysis: there is no universal winner. Buyers should compare the exact fields, refresh dates, geographic gaps, license rights and support terms using the same sample of known properties.

    How much does XMap cost?

    XMap does not publish standard prices for API usage, dataset downloads, MCP access or enterprise subscriptions. Public information does not establish minimum commitments, included query volumes, overage rates, implementation fees or separate charges for particular data layers. Prospective customers need a direct quote. The commercial proposal should distinguish live queries from bulk data, identify every included geography and field, and explain whether customers may store, transform or share derived results. BestCRE analysis: evaluate cost against verified analyst time saved across a representative pilot. Do not compare only the subscription amount. Include engineering, data validation, user training, ongoing quality monitoring and any parallel sources that must remain in place.

    Who should use XMap?

    XMap is best suited to site selection groups, retail expansion teams, land analysts, GIS professionals and real estate software developers evaluating many locations. It is particularly relevant when a company wants to automate repetitive checks involving parcel ownership, surrounding businesses, mobility patterns, traffic and demographics. The buyer should have someone capable of testing records and maintaining data rules, whether that person sits in GIS, engineering or real estate analytics. Small firms wanting a finished report with little setup may be better served by a conventional CRE research or mapping product. BestCRE analysis: XMap becomes more compelling as site volume and workflow repetition rise, because those conditions create enough labor savings to justify integration.

    Will XMap become a core data layer for CRE AI agents?

    XMap has a plausible path to becoming a useful data layer for CRE agents because it exposes location information through structured APIs, SQL, Python and MCP tools. Those interfaces allow software to request specific parcel or market context instead of reading a static map. Whether XMap becomes a core layer will depend on factors that remain less visible publicly: geographic accuracy, source lineage, service reliability, licensing flexibility, governance controls and sustained customer adoption. Established property data companies can also add agent interfaces to their existing datasets. BestCRE analysis for Q4 2026: XMap has a meaningful technical head start in packaging, but buyers should judge progress through documented production deployments and independently testable data performance.

    Related Reviews

    Compare XMAP with other Acquisitions tools BestCRE has scored: CompStak (76/100), Cherre (74/100), Google Gemini (70/100) and Davis (63/100). Browse every review in CRE Acquisitions, the full Best CRE AI Tools directory, or the 20 CRE Sectors hub.

  • Climate X Review: Asset-level climate risk translated into financial impact

    Climate X Review: Asset-level climate risk translated into financial impact

    BestCRE 9AI Score

    69/100 · Niche

    Climate X ranks #322 of 530 commercial real estate AI tools scored on the 9AI Framework. Nine dimensions, each scored out of 10: CRE relevance, data quality, ease of adoption, output accuracy, integration fit, pricing transparency, support, innovation and market reputation.

    Climate X is a London-based climate analytics company serving real estate owners, investors, lenders, banks, insurers and other institutions exposed to physical assets. Its software changes a familiar CRE workflow: instead of treating climate risk as a separate sustainability exercise, teams can incorporate hazard exposure and potential financial loss into acquisition screening, underwriting, portfolio surveillance and capital planning. Spectra is the central risk assessment product, while Adapt addresses resilience measures and Carta maps corporate asset exposure.

    The practical appeal is the movement from hazard maps toward decision variables. A flood, wildfire or extreme heat score can help identify exposure, but an investment committee needs to understand possible damage, valuation implications, operating disruption and required capital. Climate X positions its models around asset-level financial loss metrics, with assessments available across portfolios and different time horizons. BestCRE analysis finds this orientation more useful for owners and lenders than a climate dataset that stops at hazard probability.

    Climate X is CRE-adjacent rather than a full real estate operating platform. It does not replace property management, valuation, transaction data or portfolio accounting systems. Its role is narrower: adding forward-looking physical climate risk evidence to decisions already made in those systems. That specialization is valuable where climate exposure can affect insurance availability, financing terms, due diligence, resilience spending or long-term hold assumptions.

    The strongest buying case is for an institution with geographically distributed assets and a recurring need to assess climate risk consistently. Climate X says institutions managing very large asset bases use its software, and public endorsements come from representatives associated with leading real estate, banking and professional services firms. Those signals support credibility, but they do not establish model accuracy for a buyer’s particular assets. BestCRE analysis recommends a paid validation exercise using known loss events, engineering reports and local hazard data before portfolio-wide adoption.

    What Climate X Does and How It Works

    Spectra evaluates physical climate risks at the asset and portfolio levels, then translates modeled exposure into financial loss measures. A user can assess near-term and longer-term conditions rather than relying only on historical hazard records. The intended workflow is to upload or connect asset locations and relevant property information, run scenarios, compare exposure across holdings and bring the resulting loss estimates into lending, investment or risk processes. Climate X does not publicly disclose every modeling input, resolution limit or validation result on its main product presentation, so buyers should request technical documentation during diligence.

    Adapt moves from diagnosis to mitigation. It estimates the capital required for adaptation measures and evaluates the prospective return associated with those investments. For a property team, that can connect climate analytics with a capital expenditure plan: identify an exposed asset, examine potential interventions, estimate their cost and compare the avoided risk with the investment required. The vendor says the product is built with reference to ISO standards, UNFCCC materials, European guidance and taxonomy. BestCRE analysis views this as a notable product distinction, although an estimate should not substitute for an engineer’s scope, local code review or contractor pricing.

    Carta addresses a different problem, mapping portfolio exposure through public and private company assets. Climate X states that Carta covers 18.7 million companies, allowing financial institutions to examine exposure beyond directly owned real estate and familiar domestic markets. Across the suite, the outputs are intended to support due diligence, investment decisions, lending, regulatory work and resilience planning. The company also identifies alignment with disclosure and regulatory frameworks including TCFD, IFRS S2, SB 261, CSRD and ESRS. Buyers should distinguish framework-aligned reporting from formal assurance, and they should confirm that the available exports, audit trails and scenario definitions satisfy their own governance requirements.

    9AI Framework: Dimension by Dimension Analysis

    CRE Relevance: 8/10

    Climate X earns an 8 for CRE relevance because its core unit of analysis is the physical asset, and its stated users include real estate owners, investors and lenders. Spectra can support acquisition screening, credit underwriting, portfolio monitoring and investment committee review, while Adapt connects identified exposure to resilience capital planning. Those are direct CRE workflows, not generic corporate sustainability tasks. The limitation is breadth. Climate X does not provide rent comparables, tenant intelligence, transaction evidence, leasing workflows, property operations or conventional valuation. It supplies a specialized risk layer that must sit beside those systems. BestCRE analysis therefore places it above general-purpose analytics products for climate-sensitive real estate decisions, but below a fully CRE-native platform on overall workflow coverage.

    Data Quality and Sources: 8/10

    Climate X earns an 8 for data quality. The product presents asset-level analysis, multiple physical risk types, scenario-based time horizons and financially expressed outputs. Its coverage across real estate and corporate assets suggests a data architecture designed for institutional portfolios rather than isolated property checks. References to established climate and reporting frameworks also indicate attention to standardized methods. However, buyers cannot judge quality from coverage claims alone. The vendor does not publish all underlying datasets, model weights, geographic resolution constraints, refresh schedules or independent validation results in its main public materials. BestCRE analysis considers the data proposition strong, but procurement should require hazard-specific methodology papers, lineage documentation, treatment of missing building attributes and evidence of performance in the buyer’s target countries.

    Ease of Adoption: 7/10

    Climate X earns a 7 for ease of adoption. The product is designed to let institutional teams run asset and portfolio assessments without commissioning a separate consulting study for every decision. Financial loss outputs can be easier for credit and investment committees to interpret than raw climate indicators, and the division between Spectra, Adapt and Carta gives buyers recognizable entry points. Adoption still requires substantial preparation. Address records must be normalized, properties matched correctly, asset attributes checked and internal teams trained to interpret scenario outputs. Governance teams must also agree on acceptable scenarios, thresholds and uses. Climate X does not publish a standard implementation schedule or a complete self-service onboarding specification. BestCRE analysis expects adoption to be manageable for a mature data team, but more demanding for smaller owners with fragmented property records.

    Output Accuracy: 7/10

    Climate X earns a 7 for output accuracy. Turning physical hazards into asset-level financial loss is more decision-ready than a simple risk flag, but it also introduces assumptions about vulnerability, damage functions, building characteristics, scenarios and time horizons. Accuracy can vary by hazard, geography and property type, particularly when detailed construction or protection information is unavailable. The company presents its analytics as designed for accuracy and institutional decision-making, yet it does not publish enough universal performance evidence to support a higher score across every CRE market. BestCRE analysis recommends testing outputs against insured losses, engineering surveys, flood defenses, local wildfire conditions and known historical events. A buyer should also examine confidence ranges and sensitivity to missing inputs, rather than treating a single loss estimate as a precise forecast.

    Integration and Workflow Fit: 7/10

    Climate X earns a 7 for integration. The company positions Spectra for use within portfolio management workflows, which is essential because climate metrics have limited value when isolated from asset, loan and investment records. Its asset-level structure should allow identifiers and results to be associated with properties in data warehouses, underwriting models and reporting tools. Public materials, however, do not provide a complete catalog of supported connectors, implementation patterns, data schemas or commercial terms for integration. BestCRE analysis sees credible enterprise fit, especially where an institution already maintains clean property data and integration resources. The score stops short of the top tier because buyers must verify APIs, batch processing, authentication, export formats, update handling and lineage controls directly with the vendor.

    Pricing Transparency: 3/10

    Climate X earns a 3 for pricing transparency. The vendor does not publish subscription prices, implementation fees, usage allowances, minimum contract values or standard package boundaries. Prospective customers are directed toward account creation or a demonstration, leaving them unable to estimate total cost before sales engagement. Enterprise climate analytics often require pricing based on asset count, geography, hazards, modules or usage, but Climate X does not publicly confirm a universal pricing formula. BestCRE analysis regards this as a meaningful procurement disadvantage, particularly for midmarket owners comparing specialized tools. Buyers should request a written breakdown covering licenses, portfolio volume, scenarios, modules, data preparation, integration, training, support, renewals and overages. They should also require a sample output before agreeing to a broader deployment.

    Support and Reliability: 6/10

    Climate X earns a 6 for support. Its enterprise focus and relationships with major professional services and real estate organizations suggest that guided implementation and subject-matter access are part of the commercial proposition. Climate risk analytics also demands explanation, since users need help interpreting scenarios, loss metrics and model limitations. However, the vendor does not publish enough detail about standard support hours, response targets, named customer success coverage, implementation staffing, training entitlements or service-level commitments to justify a higher score. BestCRE analysis expects support to be negotiated rather than standardized. Buyers should ask who handles address matching, portfolio data validation, methodology questions and disputed results, then place response times and escalation rights in the contract. Access to climate scientists or model specialists should be distinguished from ordinary account support.

    Innovation and Roadmap: 9/10

    Climate X earns a 9 for innovation. Its most distinctive capability is not hazard screening by itself, which several competitors offer, but the connection among physical risk, financial loss and adaptation economics. Spectra translates modeled hazards into potential monetary consequences, while Adapt estimates resilience capital requirements and prospective returns. That progression can move climate work from disclosure toward investment planning. Carta further extends the approach to corporate asset mapping for financial institutions. BestCRE analysis finds the adaptation component particularly differentiated because owners need to decide what to do with an exposed building, not merely identify that exposure exists. The remaining caution is that a novel output is only valuable when assumptions are transparent and local conditions are represented accurately. Innovation therefore strengthens the evaluation but does not remove the need for technical validation.

    Market Reputation: 7/10

    Climate X earns a 7 for market reputation. The company is venture-backed and has visible associations with established organizations across banking, consulting, real estate and energy services. Public endorsements from senior industry figures provide stronger evidence than anonymous testimonials, and the CBRE-related wildfire work indicates relevance to institutional property decisions. Climate X also positions its products around current regulatory and disclosure needs, which helps it participate in enterprise procurement conversations. The vendor does not publish a complete customer list, retention data, deployment counts or long-term performance statistics, so market penetration cannot be independently measured from public information. BestCRE analysis views Climate X as a credible specialist with meaningful institutional validation, but not yet as universally established in CRE data stacks as longstanding property information providers.

    9AI Score Card Climate X
    69
    69 / 100
    Emerging Tool
    Climate Risk Analytics
    Climate X
    Climate X estimates physical climate exposure, expected financial losses and adaptation spending for real estate assets, supporting portfolio screening, underwriting and resilience planning.
    9 Dimensions, Scored 1 to 10
    1. CRE Relevance
    8/10
    2. Data Quality & Sources
    8/10
    3. Ease of Adoption
    7/10
    4. Output Accuracy
    7/10
    5. Integration & Workflow Fit
    7/10
    6. Pricing Transparency
    3/10
    7. Support & Reliability
    6/10
    8. Innovation & Roadmap
    9/10
    9. Market Reputation
    7/10
    BestCRE.com, 9AI Framework v2 Reviewed October 2026

    Who Should Use Climate X

    Climate X best suits institutional owners, investment managers and lenders with assets spread across multiple regions or hazard zones. Portfolio strategy teams can use it to rank exposure and identify properties needing deeper diligence. Acquisition teams can add modeled physical risk and loss estimates to investment committee materials. Credit teams can evaluate collateral over the intended loan term, while sustainability and risk functions can apply a more consistent methodology across the organization. The value increases when climate findings already influence pricing, insurance review, hold periods or capital allocation.

    It also suits organizations ready to act on the findings. Asset managers with engineering resources and multiyear capital plans can use Adapt as a starting point for comparing resilience measures, subject to local validation. Banks, insurers, private equity firms and consultancies may value Carta when exposure must be mapped through corporate holdings rather than a directly owned property list. BestCRE analysis finds the strongest fit where the buyer has clean location data, internal model governance and enough portfolio scale to make repeatable software analysis more efficient than property-by-property consulting.

    Who Should Not Use Climate X

    Climate X is not the right primary system for a broker seeking comparables, an asset manager tracking leases, or an operator managing work orders and utility bills. It does not replace CoStar, VTS, a property management system, an appraisal or an engineering inspection. Small owners with a few properties may find local consultants, insurers and municipal hazard sources more proportionate, particularly if they need a one-time assessment rather than recurring portfolio surveillance.

    It is also a poor fit for teams expecting a model to produce certain predictions. Climate outputs depend on scenarios, asset information and vulnerability assumptions. Buyers without staff capable of challenging those assumptions may misuse precise-looking financial estimates. Organizations requiring public, fixed pricing before a sales call will find the procurement process frustrating. BestCRE analysis also advises against adoption when the buyer cannot connect risk findings to underwriting rules, insurance decisions or capital plans, since the result could become another reporting dataset with limited operational effect.

    Pricing and ROI Analysis

    Climate X does not publish prices for Spectra, Adapt or Carta. It also does not publish standard tiers, asset allowances, setup fees, contract lengths or integration charges. Buyers should assume a negotiated enterprise sale and request pricing for each module separately. A comparable quote should identify the number of properties or companies covered, permitted users, included hazards and scenarios, geographic limits, refresh frequency, exports, integration work, training, support and renewal treatment. Without those details, headline subscription figures would not be comparable.

    BestCRE analysis: calculate ROI from decisions changed, not reports produced. If a portfolio team evaluates 500 assets annually and software saves one analyst hour per asset, multiply 500 hours by the organization’s fully loaded hourly cost. Add any avoided external assessment expense and any verified reduction in expected loss attributable to approved adaptation work. Then subtract subscription, implementation, data cleanup and internal governance costs. Do not count modeled avoided losses unless an engineer validates the intervention and the investment committee actually funds it. The purchase case is credible when recurring labor savings and better capital decisions exceed total annual cost under conservative assumptions.

    Integration and CRE Tech Stack Fit

    Climate X should sit as a risk enrichment layer beside a property master, loan system, investment database or data warehouse. Asset identifiers, addresses and building attributes flow into the analysis, while hazard, loss and adaptation outputs return to underwriting models, portfolio dashboards and reporting processes. That structure is compatible with institutional CRE stacks, but the quality of entity matching will matter. Duplicate properties, incomplete addresses and inconsistent building records can undermine otherwise sophisticated modeling.

    The vendor says Spectra integrates with portfolio management workflows, but it does not publish a comprehensive connector directory or full technical specification in its main public materials. Buyers should verify API availability, bulk uploads, scheduled processing, single sign-on, permissions, audit logs and export formats. BestCRE analysis recommends retaining both the original inputs and model version with every output. That record allows risk teams to reproduce decisions when scenarios, asset attributes or methodologies change.

    Competitive Landscape

    First Street is the clearest alternative for property-level physical climate intelligence, particularly for buyers focused on hazard exposure and location-based risk. Cotality, formerly associated with the CoreLogic name, is relevant when climate risk must be combined with broad property, reconstruction cost and insurance-oriented data. Deepki is a stronger comparison for real estate sustainability management, energy data and decarbonization workflows, although its center of gravity differs from Climate X’s emphasis on physical risk and financial loss.

    Climate X differentiates itself through a dedicated real estate orientation spanning commercial and residential assets, plus the progression from risk identification to financial impact and adaptation investment. BestCRE analysis finds Adapt more distinctive than basic hazard scoring. A buyer concerned mainly with disclosure, energy consumption or carbon accounting may prefer Deepki. A lender or insurer seeking extensive property records alongside hazard information may favor Cotality. A team needing accessible property risk screening should compare First Street directly with Spectra.

    The selection should be made with a controlled portfolio test. Give each finalist the same assets, property attributes, hazards, time horizons and historical events. Compare geographic coverage, model explanations, confidence ranges, financial loss estimates, workflow integration and response to missing data. Climate X deserves a shortlist when resilience spending is part of the decision, but it should win on validated outputs and usable governance rather than the breadth of its claims.

    The Bottom Line

    Climate X is a strong specialist choice for institutional CRE organizations that need to translate physical climate exposure into underwriting, portfolio risk and resilience decisions. BestCRE analysis favors it over a simple hazard map when financial loss estimates and adaptation planning will influence actual capital allocation. The product’s real estate focus, scenario analysis and adaptation economics justify a serious pilot.

    Do not sign a portfolio-wide agreement solely on a demonstration. Require technical methodology, input requirements, geographic limitations, confidence measures, model versioning, integration specifications and a detailed price schedule. Test representative assets against engineering evidence and known events. Buy if the results materially change decisions and withstand internal model review. If the need is limited to basic screening, carbon accounting or traditional property intelligence, a narrower or differently focused alternative may offer better value.

    About BestCRE

    BestCRE.com is the definitive authority on commercial real estate AI, analysis, and investment intelligence. Every article advances the platform’s mission to help CRE professionals identify, evaluate, and adopt the best tools and strategies in the industry. We benchmark platforms using the 9AI Framework so CRE leaders can compare tools with clear evidence. Explore the category map at 20 CRE sectors for deeper coverage across the CRE stack.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    What is Climate X?

    Climate X is a climate risk analytics company that helps real estate owners, investors, lenders and other financial institutions assess physical climate exposure. Its Spectra product estimates asset-level and portfolio-level risk and translates that risk into financial loss measures. Adapt estimates potential resilience capital requirements and the prospective return from adaptation measures. Carta maps exposure through the assets of public and private companies. In CRE, the software is intended to support acquisition diligence, credit underwriting, portfolio monitoring, regulatory work and capital planning. It is a specialized risk layer, not a replacement for property management, leasing, valuation, engineering or transaction data systems. BestCRE analysis finds its strongest use case in portfolios where climate findings can influence financing, insurance review, investment terms or building improvements.

    How does Climate X compare with First Street and Deepki?

    Climate X, First Street and Deepki overlap around climate and real estate, but their emphasis differs. First Street is a close comparison for property-level physical hazard intelligence and location screening. Deepki is more focused on real estate sustainability management, energy performance and decarbonization workflows. Climate X emphasizes the conversion of physical hazards into asset-level financial loss, then extends the workflow into adaptation capital and prospective returns. BestCRE analysis considers that connection between exposure and resilience investment its main distinction. Buyers should compare the products using the same sample assets and scenarios, then examine hazard coverage, geographic resolution, assumptions, confidence ranges, exports and treatment of missing building information. The right choice depends on whether the primary problem is hazard screening, sustainability operations or financial risk and adaptation planning.

    How much does Climate X cost?

    Climate X does not publish standard prices for Spectra, Adapt or Carta. Public information does not specify subscription tiers, per-asset rates, minimum contracts, setup charges or integration fees. Buyers must contact the company for a tailored proposal. A useful quote should separate module licenses, asset or company volume, users, hazards, scenarios, territories, refresh frequency, implementation, training, support and any usage overages. BestCRE analysis recommends requesting a paid pilot or a contractually defined evaluation using representative properties before committing to a broad rollout. Compare total annual cost with analyst time saved, external studies avoided and capital decisions improved. Do not treat modeled avoided losses as certain savings, and include internal data preparation, validation and governance costs in the business case.

    Who should use Climate X?

    Climate X is best suited to institutional real estate owners, investment managers, banks, insurers, private equity firms and consultancies managing geographically diverse exposure. It is particularly relevant to acquisition, portfolio strategy, credit, sustainability and enterprise risk teams that need a consistent way to compare properties across hazards and future scenarios. Organizations with multiyear capital plans may benefit from Adapt because it connects identified exposure with possible resilience spending. BestCRE analysis sees less value for a small owner seeking a one-time property check, or for teams that cannot connect results to underwriting, insurance, asset plans or investment decisions. The buyer should have clean asset location data, internal responsibility for reviewing model assumptions and access to engineers or local specialists when a high-risk property requires detailed validation.

    Will Climate X become more important for CRE investors?

    BestCRE analysis expects tools such as Climate X to become more relevant as lenders, insurers, investors and regulators ask for clearer evidence of physical climate exposure and resilience planning. The important shift is from reporting that a property faces a hazard to estimating how that exposure could affect cash flow, value, financing and capital requirements. Climate X is positioned for that shift because it combines loss analytics with adaptation analysis. Future importance will depend on model transparency, validation across markets, workflow integration and the ability to update assumptions as climate science and property conditions change. Buyers should also watch whether outputs become accepted in credit policies, appraisals, insurance discussions and transaction diligence. Wider adoption is plausible, but no model can remove uncertainty or replace property-level engineering judgment.

    Related Reviews

    Compare Climate X with other Market Analytics & Data tools BestCRE has scored: CompStak (76/100), Cherre (74/100), Google Gemini (70/100) and ScyAI (57/100). Browse every review in CRE Market Analytics & Data, the full Best CRE AI Tools directory, or the 20 CRE Sectors hub.

  • Targomo Review: Location analytics for smarter site selection decisions

    Targomo Review: Location analytics for smarter site selection decisions

    BestCRE 9AI Score

    71/100 · Contender

    Targomo ranks #245 of 529 commercial real estate AI tools scored on the 9AI Framework. Nine dimensions, each scored out of 10: CRE relevance, data quality, ease of adoption, output accuracy, integration fit, pricing transparency, support, innovation and market reputation.

    Targomo is a location intelligence company used by retail, restaurant, fitness, real estate and other teams that evaluate physical locations. In a commercial real estate workflow, it sits between raw geospatial data and the investment or leasing decision. Users can assess catchment areas, travel times, footfall, demographics, nearby amenities and competitive context without assembling every dataset and map separately. The clearest fit is a multi location operator deciding where to open, close or prioritize sites, although investors, developers and real estate marketplaces can also use its accessibility analysis.

    The main application, TargomoLOOP, provides a configurable mapping and analysis environment for site selection and network planning. GeoAI adds models intended to identify location factors associated with business performance and predict sales metrics for candidate sites. TargomoAPI exposes routing, travel time, point of interest and isochrone capabilities for companies that want to place location intelligence inside their own applications or internal systems. This combination gives buyers a choice between a ready interface, predictive analysis and developer infrastructure.

    For CRE buyers, the important distinction is that Targomo is CRE adjacent rather than a complete real estate intelligence system. It can explain how accessible a property is, who may reach it and what surrounds it. It does not replace lease comparables, ownership records, property financials, pipeline tracking or transaction management. Analysis: its value therefore depends on whether location potential is a central underwriting variable. It is more consequential for a restaurant expansion team than for an office investment analyst focused primarily on rent rolls and capital structure.

    Targomo became part of CASAFARI, connecting its location data expertise with a broader property technology platform. That ownership could widen the product’s real estate context, but buyers should evaluate the current integration rather than purchase against a future roadmap. The vendor publishes meaningful product descriptions, API documentation and named customer evidence, yet it does not publish standard pricing or enough model validation detail for an investor to accept forecasts without independent testing. BestCRE views Targomo as a credible specialist for geographic demand and accessibility analysis, with less coverage of the property and transaction data required for comprehensive CRE underwriting.

    What Targomo Does and How It Works

    TargomoLOOP lets analysts place existing or proposed locations on a map, define relevant geographic areas and compare sites using selected data layers. Its travel time analysis can represent reach by modes such as driving, walking, cycling or public transport, subject to geographic availability and configuration. Isochrones provide a more realistic view of catchment than a fixed radius because they account for the transport network. Teams can then examine population, footfall, amenities, competitors and other indicators within those reachable areas. The vendor says the platform draws on more than 250 datasets, although coverage, provenance, refresh frequency and licensing can differ by market and should be checked during procurement.

    GeoAI addresses the forecasting stage. A customer can combine its own performance data with location variables to determine which characteristics correlate with successful sites, then generate predictions for candidates. This can help an expansion team rank a long list before commissioning detailed fieldwork or negotiating leases. The forecast is not an independent guarantee of revenue. Its usefulness depends on the quality and representativeness of the customer’s historical locations, the selected explanatory variables, market stability and the treatment of operational differences between stores. Analysis: buyers should request holdout testing, error distributions and performance by market, rather than relying on a single accuracy headline or an attractive map.

    TargomoAPI supplies building blocks for organizations that need location functions embedded in another product. Developers can request routes, travel times, points of interest and reachable areas, then combine the responses with property records, customer data or a proprietary user interface. This is useful for listing marketplaces, internal acquisition tools and applications that need personalized location results at scale. The API also creates implementation obligations: the buyer must manage data mapping, user permissions, monitoring and any downstream logic. Targomo therefore supports both analysts who want a packaged workspace and technical teams that want configurable geospatial services. It is not a substitute for a system of record, and a successful deployment still requires defined decision rules, data governance and accountable review.

    9AI Framework: Dimension by Dimension Analysis

    CRE Relevance: 7/10

    Targomo earns 7 for CRE relevance because site selection, catchment analysis, accessibility and property potential are direct concerns for occupiers, developers and some investors. Its strongest CRE application is evaluating whether a location can reach the right customers and how it compares with an existing network. Those capabilities are particularly relevant to retail, restaurants, fitness, healthcare and other consumer facing uses. The limitation is scope. Targomo does not present itself as a complete source for leases, sales comparables, ownership, debt, rent rolls or asset management. A brokerage or acquisitions team would normally pair it with property and transaction systems. Analysis: this is a meaningful CRE decision layer, but not a broad CRE operating platform. The score reflects strong relevance to location driven property decisions and weaker relevance to financial underwriting, transaction execution and ongoing building operations.

    Data Quality and Sources: 8/10

    Targomo earns 8 for data quality. The platform brings together footfall, demographic, amenity, transport and point of interest information, and the vendor states that TargomoLOOP is powered by more than 250 datasets. That breadth can materially reduce the work required to source and normalize location variables. International coverage is also a practical advantage for operators comparing several countries. Breadth alone does not establish fitness for a specific decision. Dataset provenance, geographic granularity, update schedules, sampling methods and historical depth may vary, while some measures can be modeled rather than directly observed. The vendor does not publish a universal data dictionary covering every country and variable. Analysis: buyers should score representative addresses against known local conditions, inspect missing values and confirm whether important sources can be used in investment documentation. The rating recognizes substantial geographic breadth while reserving room for market specific validation.

    Ease of Adoption: 8/10

    Targomo earns 8 for ease of adoption because TargomoLOOP packages sophisticated spatial analysis inside a visual interface intended for daily business users. Mapping candidate sites, viewing catchments and comparing configured indicators should be more accessible than building the same workflow from geographic databases and desktop GIS software. Public customer comments also identify the interface as intuitive, although vendor selected testimonials are not a substitute for an independent usability study. Adoption still requires decisions about datasets, scoring logic, user roles and the meaning of each metric. GeoAI additionally needs suitable historical performance data and careful model validation. The API route requires development resources and should be treated as a software project rather than a plug in. Analysis: an analyst team can likely reach useful outputs quickly in the packaged product, but enterprise standardization across markets will require governance, training and consistent definitions.

    Output Accuracy: 7/10

    Targomo earns 7 for output accuracy. Routing, travel time and isochrone outputs are grounded in established geospatial methods, but real world accuracy depends on transport networks, mode assumptions, time settings and local data quality. Footfall and demographic estimates also carry sampling and modeling limitations that can become material when nearby sites have similar scores. GeoAI forecasts introduce another layer of uncertainty because predictions depend on the customer’s historical data, chosen variables and the stability of relationships across markets and formats. Targomo markets accurate forecasting, but it does not publish enough standardized, independent validation to establish one expected error rate for every customer. Analysis: outputs are suitable for screening, comparison and decision support when tested locally. Buyers should not treat them as definitive forecasts. A pilot should compare predictions with actual results, report errors by site type and preserve human review for unusual locations.

    Integration and Workflow Fit: 9/10

    Targomo earns 9 for integration because it offers both an end user platform and a dedicated API for geospatial applications. TargomoAPI covers core functions such as routing, travel times, points of interest and isochrones, allowing technical teams to place location analysis inside listing portals, acquisition tools, customer applications or internal dashboards. The API approach is more flexible than relying solely on exports from a closed mapping interface. Targomo’s relationship with CASAFARI also creates a plausible path toward richer property context, although buyers should verify which connections are available now. The vendor does not publish a comprehensive list of packaged connectors to every major CRE system, customer relationship platform or data warehouse. Analysis: the architecture appears integration friendly, but actual effort will depend on identity management, data rights, field matching and workflow design. The score rewards the unusually useful developer option while recognizing that an API is capability, not completed integration.

    Pricing Transparency: 3/10

    Targomo earns 3 for pricing transparency because the vendor does not publish standard subscription prices, API rates, implementation fees or minimum commitments. Prospective customers are directed toward a demonstration or sales conversation. Custom pricing can be reasonable for a platform whose cost may vary by countries, users, datasets, request volume and forecasting scope, but it makes early comparison difficult. Buyers cannot determine from public information whether a pilot, one market deployment or limited API workload fits their budget. They should request a detailed proposal separating software access, premium data, implementation, training, model development, API consumption and renewal increases. Analysis: procurement should also establish what happens when usage or geographic coverage expands. The low score does not imply that Targomo is expensive. It reflects the absence of public price points and the resulting effort required to understand total cost before entering a sales process.

    Support and Reliability: 7/10

    Targomo earns 7 for support. The company publishes a knowledge base for TargomoLOOP, documentation for TargomoAPI and contact paths for product inquiries. Its positioning also emphasizes expert assistance, which matters because location models require more than software access. Customers may need help choosing datasets, defining catchments, interpreting footfall, preparing internal performance data and validating forecasts. Public information does not establish standard response times, support tiers, service credits, implementation staffing or coverage by region. It is also unclear which services are included in subscription pricing and which require a separate engagement. Analysis: the available resources suggest a credible support structure, but enterprise buyers should put operational commitments into the contract. References should be asked about onboarding quality, issue resolution and help adapting models when a market or store format changes. The score reflects visible enablement resources without assuming unpublished service levels.

    Innovation and Roadmap: 8/10

    Targomo earns 8 for innovation because it combines interactive location analysis, multimodal accessibility, broad contextual data, predictive modeling and developer services within one product family. The strongest element is not any individual map layer. It is the ability to connect a customer’s operating outcomes with geographic features and apply the resulting model to prospective sites. That can move a team from descriptive mapping toward repeatable location forecasting. TargomoAPI also lets customers turn the underlying spatial functions into their own products and workflows. These capabilities are not unique, as several location intelligence vendors offer footfall analysis, catchments and predictive site scoring. The GeoAI label should therefore be judged by demonstrated model performance rather than terminology. Analysis: Targomo shows meaningful product depth and an adaptable technical foundation, but it is advancing within an established category rather than creating an entirely new one.

    Market Reputation: 7/10

    Targomo earns 7 for market reputation. The vendor identifies established brands using its products and publishes customer stories involving location planning and expansion. Its acquisition by CASAFARI provides strategic backing and links Targomo with a broader property technology business. The website also presents named executives from customer organizations, offering more credibility than anonymous testimonials. However, the vendor does not publish enough information to independently establish customer retention, recurring revenue, implementation success rates or market share. Public customer evidence appears strongest among multi location consumer businesses rather than across every CRE segment. Analysis: Targomo has credible proof that serious operators use the platform, but it does not have the category dominance or extensive independent benchmarking associated with the largest property data providers. Buyers should request references that match their country, asset type, portfolio scale and intended forecasting workflow.

    9AI Score Card Targomo
    71
    71 / 100
    Solid Platform
    Location Intelligence
    Targomo
    Targomo combines accessibility, footfall, demographic and amenity data with mapping and revenue forecasting for retail, restaurant and real estate location decisions.
    9 Dimensions, Scored 1 to 10
    1. CRE Relevance
    7/10
    2. Data Quality & Sources
    8/10
    3. Ease of Adoption
    8/10
    4. Output Accuracy
    7/10
    5. Integration & Workflow Fit
    9/10
    6. Pricing Transparency
    3/10
    7. Support & Reliability
    7/10
    8. Innovation & Roadmap
    8/10
    9. Market Reputation
    7/10
    BestCRE.com, 9AI Framework v2 Reviewed October 2026

    Who Should Use Targomo

    Targomo best suits expansion, strategy and real estate teams at retailers, restaurant groups, fitness operators, healthcare providers and other businesses with networks of physical sites. These buyers repeatedly ask whether a proposed location reaches the right population, faces excessive competition or complements the existing estate. The visual platform can give business analysts a common framework for screening candidates and explaining recommendations. It is especially relevant when a team operates across several markets and wants consistent accessibility and catchment methods without constructing a geographic technology stack internally.

    The product can also suit developers, landlords, investment teams and property marketplaces when accessibility and consumer demand are important parts of the thesis. A developer assessing neighborhood services, an investor comparing retail assets or a marketplace adding travel time search could each use different parts of the platform. Technical organizations are particularly good candidates for TargomoAPI because they can combine spatial functions with proprietary property, tenant or customer data. Analysis: the strongest buyer has repeated location decisions, clean historical performance data and a staff member accountable for validating how geographic indicators affect commercial outcomes.

    Who Should Not Use Targomo

    Targomo is a weaker fit for buyers seeking a single source of comprehensive CRE records. It does not replace transaction comparables, lease intelligence, ownership research, debt data, rent roll analysis, asset accounting or brokerage workflow management. Office and industrial teams whose decisions depend mainly on tenancy, building specifications and financial structure may find location intelligence useful but secondary. A company making only occasional site decisions may also struggle to justify the setup and data work required for a recurring platform.

    Teams without reliable outcome data should be cautious about buying primarily for revenue prediction. GeoAI can only learn useful relationships when the underlying performance history, store attributes and location variables are sufficiently consistent. Buyers that require an immediately published price will also find the evaluation frustrating because standard pricing is not public. Analysis: organizations unwilling to run a controlled pilot, examine forecast errors and maintain decision governance should choose a simpler mapping product or purchase project based analysis from a specialist consultant.

    Pricing and ROI Analysis

    Targomo does not publish standard prices for TargomoLOOP, GeoAI or TargomoAPI. It also does not publicly specify minimum contract value, included users, API allowances, implementation charges or premium dataset fees. Buyers should request separate pricing for platform licenses, geographic coverage, data modules, forecasting work, integration, training and ongoing support. The proposal should define overage rates, renewal terms and the cost of adding countries or business units. Because data rights can affect both price and permitted use, procurement should confirm whether outputs may be stored, shared with advisers and incorporated into investment records.

    Analysis: simple ROI math should begin with avoidable research cost and better site decisions, not an assumed revenue uplift. If a team evaluates 120 candidates annually and Targomo saves three analyst hours per candidate, it saves 360 hours. Multiplying those hours by the buyer’s fully loaded hourly cost provides a conservative annual efficiency value. The buyer can then add an internally approved estimate for reduced external data purchases or avoided field studies. Forecast benefits should be counted only after a pilot demonstrates measurable improvement over the existing method. Compare that validated annual value with the complete first year cost, including implementation and internal labor, then repeat the calculation using the expected renewal cost.

    Integration and CRE Tech Stack Fit

    Targomo can occupy the geospatial analysis layer within a CRE technology stack. TargomoLOOP gives analysts a direct workspace, while TargomoAPI can send routing, travel time, point of interest and isochrone results into a property portal, site pipeline, data warehouse or custom underwriting application. A practical architecture would retain property identifiers and financial records in existing systems, then attach Targomo outputs to each candidate or asset. Buyers should confirm export formats, authentication, request limits, data retention rights and geographic coverage during technical diligence.

    The CASAFARI ownership connection may eventually deepen links between location intelligence and property information, but current functionality should be verified in a demonstration and contract. The vendor does not publish a complete catalog of ready made connectors for major CRE platforms. Analysis: integration will be easiest for teams with API engineering capacity and stable property identifiers. Less technical organizations should budget for configuration, data mapping and governance, particularly if predictions combine internal sales with external location variables.

    Competitive Landscape

    Placer.ai is the clearest alternative when observed visitation patterns, trade areas and competitive movement are the primary requirement, particularly in the United States. BestCRE scored Placer.ai at 81 in this category. Targomo offers a broader developer story around travel time, routing and isochrones, plus an international site planning orientation. Buyers should compare geographic coverage, data provenance and validation at the exact properties under consideration rather than assuming that either vendor’s footfall measure is interchangeable.

    Buxton is a relevant choice for retailers, restaurants and healthcare operators seeking customer analytics, site selection and consulting around network strategy. Locate.ai focuses on retail location decisions and predictive expansion workflows, while Placepoint and Plaace provide other approaches to site discovery and location analysis. Product availability and depth vary by geography, so buyers should confirm current market coverage directly. Targomo may be preferable when configurable accessibility analysis and an API are central requirements. A competitor may be preferable when it offers stronger local consumer data, a closer category model or more hands on advisory services.

    Traditional CRE platforms such as CoStar, scored 81 by BestCRE, address property and transaction intelligence more directly. They are complements as often as substitutes. Analysis: a serious procurement should test Targomo against one specialist location platform and the buyer’s existing property data workflow. The winning product should improve decisions on a blinded set of known sites, not merely produce the most polished presentation.

    The Bottom Line

    Buy Targomo when location accessibility, catchment composition and network planning materially affect recurring site decisions. It is particularly persuasive for multi location operators and technical teams that want both a usable analyst interface and programmable geospatial services. Require a pilot using actual successful and unsuccessful sites, and judge GeoAI on holdout errors rather than headline claims. Confirm every critical dataset by country before committing.

    Do not buy it as a replacement for a CRE property database or underwriting platform. Targomo explains geographic context, not the complete legal, physical and financial condition of an asset. Analysis: its best role is as a specialized decision layer connected to internal performance and property records. If the pilot improves ranking quality or reduces research effort enough to exceed the full subscription and implementation cost, proceed. If accessibility is only a minor factor, a narrower mapping tool or project based study is likely more economical.

    About BestCRE

    BestCRE.com is the definitive authority on commercial real estate AI, analysis, and investment intelligence. Every article advances the platform’s mission to help CRE professionals identify, evaluate, and adopt the best tools and strategies in the industry. We benchmark platforms using the 9AI Framework so CRE leaders can compare tools with clear evidence. Explore the category map at 20 CRE sectors for deeper coverage across the CRE stack.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    What is Targomo?

    Targomo is a location intelligence platform for organizations that make decisions about physical sites. Retail, restaurant, fitness, healthcare, real estate and marketplace teams can use it to examine accessibility, travel times, footfall, demographics, nearby amenities and competitive context. Its principal products include TargomoLOOP for visual site and network analysis, GeoAI for location based forecasting, and TargomoAPI for adding geospatial functions to other applications. In CRE, the platform is most useful for screening locations and evaluating market context. It is not a comprehensive source for leases, sales comparables, ownership, debt or property financials. Targomo is part of CASAFARI, a property technology company.

    How does Targomo compare with Placer.ai?

    Targomo and Placer.ai both support location decisions, but their emphasis differs. Placer.ai is widely associated with visitation analytics, trade areas and competitive movement patterns, especially for properties and brands in the United States. Targomo combines contextual datasets with multimodal travel times, routing, isochrones, site analysis, predictive modeling and an API intended for custom geospatial applications. Targomo may fit better when international planning, accessibility or developer integration is central. Placer.ai may fit better when detailed observed visitation analysis is the main purchasing objective. Analysis: buyers should run the same known locations through both products and compare coverage, stability, explanatory power and forecast performance. Neither vendor’s metrics should be accepted without checking methodology and local accuracy.

    How much does Targomo cost?

    Targomo does not publish standard pricing for TargomoLOOP, GeoAI or TargomoAPI. A buyer must contact the company for a proposal. Pricing may depend on factors such as users, countries, datasets, forecast scope, API usage and implementation requirements, but the vendor does not publish a standard formula. Request a line item quote that separates licenses, data modules, model development, onboarding, training, integration, support and usage charges. Also ask about minimum commitments, overages, renewal increases and rights to retain derived outputs. Analysis: calculate value first from analyst hours saved and external research replaced. Add forecast value only after a controlled pilot shows that Targomo improves decisions against the organization’s current method.

    Who should use Targomo for real estate decisions?

    Targomo is best suited to real estate and expansion teams that evaluate many consumer facing locations. Retailers, restaurant groups, fitness operators, healthcare networks and similar businesses can use it to compare catchments, accessibility, footfall, demographics, amenities and competitors. Developers and investors may also benefit when consumer demand and transport access are important to an asset’s performance. Marketplaces and technically mature companies can use TargomoAPI to add travel time or reachability features to their own products. It is less suitable for teams primarily seeking lease comparables, ownership records, property financials or transaction workflow. Analysis: the ideal customer has recurring site decisions, reliable historical performance data and someone responsible for testing model outputs before they enter investment or leasing decisions.

    How could Targomo change after the CASAFARI acquisition?

    CASAFARI’s acquisition of Targomo creates a logical opportunity to combine location intelligence with broader property data and workflows. That could give users richer context when moving from market screening to individual property evaluation. However, specific future integrations, release dates and commercial terms are not published, so buyers should not assume that every potential connection exists. In Q4 2026, procurement should distinguish currently available functions from roadmap items and ask for demonstrations of any claimed CASAFARI integration. Analysis: the most valuable direction would connect accessibility, demand and forecasting outputs to verified property records through consistent identifiers. Until that is demonstrably available, Targomo should be evaluated on its present mapping, data, modeling and API capabilities rather than the strategic promise of combined platforms.

    Related Reviews

    Compare Targomo with other Acquisitions tools BestCRE has scored: CompStak (76/100), Cherre (74/100), Esri ArcGIS Business Analyst (70/100) and Google Gemini (70/100). Browse every review in CRE Acquisitions, the full Best CRE AI Tools directory, or the 20 CRE Sectors hub.

PRIME 7.00%FED FUNDS 3.88%5-YR UST 4.74% ▲10-YR UST 4.95% ▲SOFR 30D 3.91%Updated Nov 5, 2026
Talk to a CRE Capital Advisor
Sizing a deal? | Curated capital network Tell Us About Your Deal (307) 439-0410