Comparison value method

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The comparative value method is a method for determining the value of real estate ( § 15 Real Estate  Valuation Ordinance - ImmoWertV). According to this method, the market value of a property is derived from the actually realized purchase prices of other properties that are sufficiently in line with the property to be compared in terms of location, use, soil condition, layout and other properties. The optimal case is the direct comparison: A neighboring property of the same location, size, use, etc. was sold yesterday at market prices. In practice, however, this is the exception. The indirect comparative value method is therefore usually used as a rule.


With regard to the land, the indirect comparative value method is based on the purchase price collection of the appraisal committees (in Germany, property purchase agreements must always be notarized, with a copy of the purchase agreement being sent to the appraisal committee). For this purpose, the expert committee can take a look at the anonymised purchase price collection. A reliable assessment is only possible with a sufficient number of sufficiently suitable comparable purchases.

Another way is to use the standard land values , which the expert committees derive empirically from the purchase price collection. These are derived for larger cities in the form of land value maps for certain locations, whereby the type and extent of structural use and the average property size on which the value derivation is based is usually specified. At least the type of structural use and the location should match between the land value zone and the property to be assessed; conversion coefficients can be applied for the degree of structural use and the size of the property. If there is no sufficiently comparable standard land value zone available, a further indirect derivation can be attempted, but this can usually be challenged.

Since most properties have a large number of individual characteristics, the characteristics of both the direct and indirect properties to be compared are often not completely identical. The difference is expressed by deriving additions or deductions or correction factors. According to German jurisprudence, the resulting deviations should generally not be higher than 30–35%. Otherwise one can no longer speak of comparable properties.

Examples of features to be considered for surcharges and discounts:

  • Local location, e.g. B. Location in the built-up area, to the cardinal points, exposure, traffic situation
  • Soil condition z. B. Subsoil, load-bearing capacity
  • Size and shape z. B. Depth, shape, front width
  • Mineral resources z. B. Dismantling options
  • Location in danger zones
  • Degree of development
  • Environmental influences z. B. Noise, smoke, smells, ...
  • Real estate assignments, basic inclusions, building site characteristics
  • Planning and building law: land use and development plan or §§ 34 and 35 BauGB
  • Use restrictions
  • Legal Restrictions on free disposal: monument protection , tenant protection , world cultural heritage
  • Condition of the outdoor facilities: necessary repairs
  • Type and use of neighboring properties

The determined value of the land is possibly due to surcharges and discounts for value-influencing factors such as B. Correct contamination and rights in rem.

Structural systems

As described for the discounted earnings method , single and two-family houses as well as condominiums can sensibly be valued using the comparative value method. The real asset method often used for this in the past is on the decline, as it tends to be unsuitable for real estate traded on the market. The feature "owner-occupied" must not play a role in the selection of an appraisal procedure, since owner-occupation is a personal relationship which, according to § 194 BauGB, does not have to be taken into account.

The comparative value method is also based on the purchase price collection of the expert committees for buildings. As with land, however, there are usually no directly comparable purchase cases. In the indirect approach, on the one hand, the property market reports of the appraisal committees are to be used and, on the other hand, the sales prices achievable on the regional market based on our own market research. Location-specific deviations (city districts) and the size can usually be taken into account. An individual assessment and consideration in terms of value require the further characteristics such as B .:

  • Micro location (infrastructure, residents, noise, etc.)
  • Furnishing
  • Subjective impression

It is advisable to state the value ranges obtained and to justify the assessment of the property to be valued within the range in a comprehensible manner. The plausibility check based on the other valuation method, which is not suitable as a primary method, is also useful (e.g. real value method for single-family homes / ZFH, income value method for ETW).

In conclusion, it can be stated that the comparative value method is the most market-oriented method (since it is based on actual prices), but due to the inhomogeneity of the real estate asset, the necessary adjustment of the comparative values ​​strongly depends on the expertise of the appraiser.

Special case: target tree method

A special case of the indirect comparison value method is the target tree method .

See also


  • Sprengnetter (Ed.): Real estate valuation - textbook and commentary (volumes 5–13) Sprengnetter GmbH, loose-leaf collection, ISBN 3-937513-02-7 .
  • Garthe, Thomas H .: The valuation reform, with all changes 2010 Haufe publishing group, ISBN 978-3-648-00852-2 .