The Challenge
The client manages a mixed-use portfolio across multiple European countries: retail, office, residential, and logistics assets in the same fund. Every time the asset management team needed to underwrite an acquisition, defend a hold-vs-sell call, or refresh a portfolio review for the board, the workflow looked the same.
Brief three to five different consultants depending on geography. Wait four to eight weeks for each report. Receive PDFs that used different methodologies, different weightings, and even different definitions of "catchment." Spend another week translating outputs into something comparable. Repeat for the next asset.
The cost of this approach was visible in the consulting line item. The bigger problem was invisible: assets were drifting because nobody was tracking how their fundamentals changed between assessments. By the time a refresh happened, the answer was usually "we should have known six months ago."
The Solution
Mapular built the client's in-house portfolio scoring tool from scratch. The tool runs in the client's own cloud environment. Their property data stays where it is. Mapular's enriched spatial layers refresh on a defined cadence and feed in via the integration layer.
The build covered the full stack:
- Data integration: connectors into the client's MRI deployment for property records, leases, capex plans, and energy performance, plus 200+ Mapular spatial variables across seven categories (demographics and demand, mobility and access, climate exposure, energy and ESG, market dynamics, built environment, competition).
- Scoring model: co-designed weighting with the asset management team and the investment committee. Each asset class (retail, office, mixed-use, residential, logistics) got its own scorecard. The team can change weights, add variables, or rebalance categories without coming back to us.
- Production dashboards: portfolio-wide scoring, side-by-side asset comparison, climate and transition risk overlays, and time-series tracking of every variable under each asset.
- Methodology and audit trail: full data lineage, scoring provenance, and source documentation built into the tool, so when the board asks "why this site," the answer is one click away.
First usable version shipped in eight weeks. Production-ready with full data refresh automation in three months.
Results & Impact
- Days to minutes per-asset site analysis. What used to be a multi-week consultant cycle is now a refresh that happens automatically as the data moves.
- One comparable basis across the entire portfolio. Every asset is scored on the same 200+ variables across the same seven categories, regardless of asset class or country.
- Investment committee ready out of the box. Every IC meeting now starts with the live scorecard. Discussions move faster because everyone is looking at the same numbers, generated the same way.
- Board-ready in days when an unexpected question lands (climate exposure, EU Taxonomy alignment, retrofit cost). The methodology is already documented and the data is already integrated.
- Consultant spend redirected. The team still uses external advisers for deep, specialised dives. The recurring scoring layer that consultants used to bill for is now in-house.
Key Takeaways
- A mixed-use portfolio needs comparable scoring. Different consultants per asset class produce reports that do not talk to each other. Same-basis scoring across the portfolio is the unlock.
- The investment committee changes how the tool gets used. Once a scorecard becomes the default starting point of every IC, the team stops asking "should we commission a study" and starts asking "what is the scorecard saying."
- Custom-built means it adapts. Off-the-shelf tools force their methodology onto your portfolio. A tool built around your asset mix and scoring thesis adapts when either changes.
- Climate and ESG cannot be bolted on later. EPC ratings, EU Taxonomy alignment, and physical-risk variables are part of the core scoring model from day one, not a downstream report.