Skip to content
Green Apple Consultants

Citizenship & residency

Investment Migration Programme Comparisons

Structured, sourced comparison of candidate programmes — with gaps shown as gaps rather than filled with estimates.

Discuss this service All services

Who it is for

Clients weighing a shortlist, and clients who have been given a comparison by someone else and want it checked.

It is also the right starting point if you have seen conflicting figures online, which is common: much of the published comparison data in this industry is out of date, incomplete, or quietly combines figures that should be kept apart.

What it covers

A comparison is only as good as the provenance of each cell in it. Ours are built from records that carry their source and the date each figure was last checked against it.

What we compare

Jurisdiction and pathway, available investment routes, the lowest verified qualifying investment, government and due-diligence fees shown separately, family eligibility by relationship, residence and physical-presence obligations, renewal or ongoing obligations, any published route to citizenship, current programme status, and the date the record was last verified.

What we will not do

We will not present an estimate as a figure. Where we hold no verified value for a field, the comparison says so. We will not combine a qualifying investment with government fees into a single headline number, because the resulting figure is wrong for almost every applicant and conceals the part that is non-recoverable.

Why figures go stale

Governments change thresholds, add fees, restrict nationalities and suspend programmes, sometimes with little notice. A comparison is a snapshot. Ours carries its date so you can see how fresh it is, and we re-verify published records on a scheduled cycle.

An interactive version covering published programmes is available on this site. This service is the advised version: the same data, plus an assessment of which differences actually matter for your circumstances.

What is included

  • Side-by-side matrix of the agreed shortlist

    Built from records that carry a source and a verification date.

  • Investment and government fees shown separately

    Never combined into a single headline figure.

  • Family eligibility compared by relationship

    Spouse, children, parents and others, per programme.

  • Obligations compared

    Residence, presence, renewal and investment-holding conditions.

  • Explicit marking of unverified fields

    Gaps are shown as gaps.

  • Relevance assessment for your circumstances

    Which of the differences actually bear on your objectives.

  • Source list and verification dates

    So you can check the basis of every figure.

How it works

  1. Shortlist definition. Which programmes to compare, and why those.
  2. Data assembly. Each field drawn from our verified records, with its source and verification date.
  3. Gap identification. Fields we cannot verify are marked, not estimated.
  4. Relevance weighting. Which differences matter for your objectives, and which are noise.
  5. Written comparison. The matrix plus a narrative on the trade-offs.

Timelines differ by programme and by the authority reviewing the file. We do not publish indicative durations we cannot source.

Scope and limits

Not included in this service

  • Estimated figures where we hold no verified value We state that we do not know rather than guessing.
  • A combined "total cost" headline Misleading for almost every applicant; we show the components.
  • A comparison reflects the position on the date shown and can be overtaken by a government announcement at any time.
  • Fields we have not verified are shown as unverified. We will not fill them to make the table look complete.
  • A table cannot tell you which programme suits your family. That requires the assessment, not the data.

Questions

Why do your figures differ from other sites?

Usually because we only publish a figure once it has been checked against an official source, and we show the date we checked. A good deal of published comparison data is stale, or combines a qualifying investment with fees in a way that flatters one programme over another.

Why are some fields blank or marked unverified?

Because we have not confirmed them against a source we trust. Leaving a gap visible is more useful than filling it with an estimate you might rely on.

How current is the data?

Every programme record carries the date it was last verified, and published records are re-reviewed on a scheduled cycle. The date is shown on the comparison so you can judge it for yourself.

Can I just use the comparison tool on the site?

Yes, and it uses the same verified records. The advised version adds the part a table cannot give you: which of those differences actually matter for your family.

This page describes an advisory service. It is not legal, tax or immigration advice, and nothing here is an offer or a guarantee of any outcome. Green Apple Consultants is not a government body and does not grant citizenship, residence or any immigration status — every application is decided solely by the competent government authority.

Related

Services that often run alongside this