Furnished Rental Price Comparisons in Phnom Penh

“Furnished” is not a standardised package in Phnom Penh. In some units it means a bed, sofa, dining area, refrigerator and washing machine; in others it also includes a television, oven, cookware, desk and a broader appliance package. The same label can therefore describe very different levels of move-in readiness.

At Orkide The Royal, the furnished unit of roughly 54 sqm is advertised with a refrigerator, washing machine, sleeping furniture, living area and kitchen. The comparable 53 sqm unfurnished unit still has its fitted kitchen, air-conditioning and access to the building’s facilities. The comparison is therefore not between an empty shell and a fully equipped home.

R&F City shows the same issue. The furnished two-bedroom unit has about 62 sqm of net interior area and is marketed as ready to move into, while the similar-size unfurnished two-bedroom leaves furniture to the tenant but retains the underlying fit-out and shared amenities. At De Castle Royal, the furnished unit adds items such as a refrigerator and washing machine while the unfurnished alternative remains in the same building with the same core facilities.

An actual inventory is more useful than the tag. Built-in storage, kitchens, air-conditioning and bathroom fixtures may already be standard in an unfurnished unit. The observed asking-rent gap therefore cannot automatically be assigned to the sofa, bed or appliances.

The most informative comparison is between units in the same development, with the same bedroom count and very similar floor area. That removes most of the location, building reputation and shared-facility differences. Across the four pairs below, the size gap is between zero and roughly 2%, so floor area itself is unlikely to explain the observed rent difference.

Even within one building, floor level, view, refurbishment and an individual landlord’s urgency remain. The Orkide units sit on different floors; the R&F pair differs in height and outlook; and the furnished De Castle Royal unit is much higher in the tower. A pair of advertisements cannot statistically separate those effects from furnishing.

Lease length is another limitation. The furnished R&F listing explicitly states long-term rental, while an identical minimum term could not be confirmed from the public text for every other listing. The table therefore compares asking rents for close alternatives; it is not a controlled experiment in which furniture is the only changing variable.

Freshness matters for the same reason. A listing can remain indexed after a unit has been let or repriced. The pages below were still publicly accessible when checked, but individual availability can change much faster than the underlying building characteristics.

For an owner, that creates an important distinction. A matched pair is not meant to prove the value of the furniture; it is meant to test whether a visible rent gap remains after building, bedroom count and floor area are brought reasonably close. If no such gap appears, a furnishing payback model cannot start from an assumed “market premium.” The fit-out cost and the achievable rent for the specific unit have to be estimated separately.

The further a pair moves away from that standard, the weaker the conclusion becomes. Floor, outlook, lease length and included charges can easily matter more than the furniture. The four pairs here are therefore useful as a test of the hypothesis in actual listings: they show no automatic positive furnished premium in these examples, but they do not create a formula for every Phnom Penh building.

All four pairs are within the same development, with the same bedroom count and near-identical floor area. These are asking rents, not signed lease rates.

These four pairs do not support the simple idea that “furnished means higher rent”: none of the furnished asking rents is higher. That is not evidence of the opposite relationship either. It is a useful demonstration of how many listing-specific factors can overwhelm furnishing.

Floor and view are one source of noise. A high-floor unit with an open outlook may command more regardless of furnishing, while another owner on a high floor may cut the price to secure a tenant faster. In the R&F pair, the furnished unit is materially higher in the building yet still asks less, so floor level alone does not explain the pricing.

Condition and timing also matter. New furniture, a recent renovation and better appliances can improve a unit’s appeal, but landlord urgency or a long vacancy can push the asking rent in the opposite direction. The US$250 negative gap at Orkide therefore cannot be read as “furniture reduces rent by US$250.”

Included costs are another variable. Building management and access to the pool or gym may be bundled into both rents, while internet, parking, cleaning and other services can differ. A higher headline rent can therefore reflect a broader package rather than a more valuable furniture set.

Ordinary condos should also be kept separate from serviced apartments. Managed accommodation can bundle housekeeping, reception, linen and other services; Knight Frank treats that as a distinct segment. Comparing it with a normal condo simply because both are furnished would mix two different products.

The table is useful not because it produces a universal “furnishing premium,” but because it tests the assumption itself. These four close pairs do not show a consistent positive uplift: the furnished ask is either equal to or lower than the unfurnished ask. For an owner, that is a reason not to add an automatic US$100–300 per month to a forecast simply because the unit will be fully equipped.

That does not make furniture useless. It can widen the tenant pool, remove the tenant’s upfront moving costs and make a unit immediately habitable. A public asking rent, however, does not show time to lease, vacancy, negotiated discounts or the final figure written into the tenancy agreement.

A zero gap within the same building can also be meaningful. It may indicate that furnishing has become a baseline expectation in that segment, or that other differences between the two units offset its value. Neither interpretation should be generalised to Phnom Penh as a whole.

For an investment model, furnishing is better treated as a separate cost line: initial fit-out, appliance and soft-furnishing replacement, damage repairs and refreshes between tenants. Rental income should then be based on an achievable rent for the specific unit and a conservative vacancy assumption, not the nominal difference between two advertisements.

For an owner, these are really two separate decisions. The first is whether furnishing is needed to meet the target tenant’s expectations and make the apartment move-in ready. The second is whether that specific fit-out creates additional cash after purchase, replacement and repair costs. Listings can help with the first question and provide limited evidence for the second, but they cannot complete a payback calculation on their own.

A scenario approach is therefore more useful than searching for one “correct premium.” The base case can use the rent of a close comparable without adding an automatic furniture uplift. A stronger case can test whether a higher achievable rent is actually supported by nearby units on similar terms. If it is not, an expensive fit-out remains a decision about product quality and positioning, not proven extra income.

There is one more practical threshold. If an unfurnished unit in the same building already sits close to the furnished asking rent, furnishing cannot be justified by a headline rent gap alone. The useful question is what the tenant would actually have to buy. A fitted kitchen, air-conditioning, built-in storage and a completed bathroom can leave only a short shopping list; the absence of a bed, sofa, refrigerator and washing machine makes move-in much more capital-intensive. That difference comes from the real inventory of the two units, not from the listing label.

This also separates tenant convenience from owner return. A full fit-out can still be sensible without a proven rent premium if it makes the specific apartment competitive within its building. The financial case, however, appears only after fit-out cost, achievable rent and future replacement are considered together. The four pairs on this page show why those two questions should not be collapsed into one.