How Have Asking Prices Changed for the Same Phnom Penh Condos?

This page works at unit level, not at project, district or city level. The direct comparison contains three apartments for which at least two dated public observations can be tied together through a stable property code and distinguishing unit details. The earliest point in that set is 30 January 2026 and the latest is 30 September 2026. That is deliberately a small evidence set: it can describe what happened to these public asks, but it cannot support a percentage claim for Phnom Penh as a whole.

A listing history has a clear boundary. It records what a seller or agent publicly asked at a particular observation, not whether the apartment sold, what price appeared in a completed contract, or whether a transaction happened at all. J Tower 2 code 21640 is a useful example: the January and June posts both show US$195,000. The defensible statement is that the ask matches at those two dates; there is no evidence here that it stayed unchanged every day between them or that a buyer paid US$195,000.

Broader market measures answer different questions. The National Bank of Cambodia publishes a Residential Property Price Index, while realestate.com.kh displays current asking-price ranges from live listings. Those can frame the market around a unit, but neither a city index nor a district median becomes that apartment’s own history. The narrower question here is simply what was publicly asked for the same identifiable home at one dated point and at the next confirmed point.

Two additional cases are kept outside the clean change calculation because they expose common traps. The Garden Residency II, Property ID 256675, carries both US$55,000 and US$47,000 around the same listing while the description also refers to an instalment arrangement, a tenant and an amount payable to the owner. Parc 21 code 20924 appears at different current prices across IPS surfaces. Neither case is turned into a neat gain or loss: the point is that a different number can exist without a proven sequential price change.

The clearest movement is the one-bedroom Axis Residences unit, property code 15313. A Khmer24 post dated 11 September 2026 shows US$60,000, 57 sqm, the eighth floor and full furnishing. The IPS page for the same code, floor, area and furnishing shows US$58,000 in its material prepared on 30 September 2026. Between those confirmed points the public ask is US$2,000 lower, about 3.3%. That supports a statement about this unit’s asking price; it does not support an annualised decline, a sale price, or a claim about Axis Residences as a whole.

J Tower 2 code 21640 produces a different result. The 30 January post offers the furnished two-bedroom, 65 sqm apartment on the 20th floor for US$195,000. Another dated post on 27 June repeats the same property code, floor, area, bedroom count and US$195,000 price. The absence of change is informative: the public evidence available here does not show the seller moving the ask by June.

Parc 21 Residence code 21639 is similar. The IPS material prepared on 29 July and a Khmer24 post dated 27 August both show US$250,000. They also align on the 17th floor, three bedrooms, furnished condition and the 93 sqm net / 115 sqm gross description. A zero difference across two observations is not a valuation verdict; it simply records a stable advertised amount across the dates that can be verified.

Averaging -3.3%, 0% and 0% into a “Phnom Penh price change” would turn three idiosyncratic listing histories into a statistic they cannot support. The units sit in different projects and price brackets, and there is no representative sampling frame behind their reappearance. Their decision value is more specific: Axis provides evidence that the seller’s public position moved, while the two unchanged histories do not show that signal.

One additional apartment is intentionally excluded from a clean percentage calculation. Parc 21 penthouse code 20924 appears at US$465,000 in a dated 29 June post, while IPS surfaces later expose the same code at US$467,500 on the detail page and US$475,000 in catalogue results. Until those simultaneous public representations are reconciled, calling US$465,000 to US$475,000 a sequential increase would overstate what the evidence proves.

The six rows below cover three confirmed units with two dated observations each. The date comes from the publication or Prepared field; it records the observable ask at that point, not the exact moment the seller changed it.

A shared project name is weak identity evidence. One building can contain many apartments with the same bedroom count and nearly identical floor area. The strongest signal in the histories used here is a stable property code that repeats alongside unit-specific details. Axis Residences code 15313 is consistently tied to 57 sqm, the eighth floor, one bedroom and full furnishing; J Tower 2 code 21640 to 65 sqm, the 20th floor and two bedrooms; Parc 21 code 21639 to the 17th floor, three bedrooms and the 93 sqm net / 115 sqm gross description.

A stable code is stronger than a matching layout because it points to a particular property record, while a layout can repeat across a floor or an entire tower. Codes are not infallible: a relisted home may receive a new identifier, another agency may use a different system, and listing data can contain errors. A robust match therefore combines the identifier with several independent attributes such as exact floor, area, room count, furnishing, distinctive photographs, view or unusual descriptive details.

Cross-platform matching needs an even higher bar. A Khmer24 post may reproduce an agency listing, but the Khmer24 ad number is not the same thing as an IPS Property Code. Code 15313 is persuasive because the IPS code is printed in both the Khmer24 post and the IPS page and the apartment attributes align. The same logic supports codes 21640 and 21639. A pair that merely says “two bedrooms in J Tower 2” with a roughly similar area would not be strong enough for the price-change table.

Photographs can bridge different identifier systems, but generic developer renders or showroom images are poor fingerprints. Distinct furniture, window positions, a particular balcony, view, or the same sequence of real unit photographs can be much stronger. The sample is kept deliberately narrow for that reason: adding superficially similar apartments would increase the row count while weakening the one thing that matters most—confidence that two prices actually belong to the same physical home.

The clearest counterexample is The Garden Residency II, Property ID 256675. The realestate.com.kh page presents US$47,000 as a sale price, yet the same page also surfaces US$55,000, and an older interface renders US$55,000 alongside US$47,000 with a 14.55% saving label. More importantly, Realtor.com published the mirrored property on 9 April 2026 with a US$55,000 headline while the description already called US$47,000 the urgent-sale price below US$55,000. Those numbers therefore cannot be reconstructed as a clean “55 first, 47 later” sequence; they coexisted within the offer.

The economics of that unit are more complicated than the headline pair. The description says it is rented at US$320 a month, allows the buyer to continue the developer instalment plan, refers to a US$358 monthly instalment and says roughly US$18,000 is payable directly to the owner. Renovation and furniture are also discussed separately. This is why a headline price, a promotional comparison and the buyer’s remaining obligations need distinct fields if the history is meant to be economically comparable.

Parc 21 code 20924 exposes a different problem. A dated post shows US$465,000 while also carrying the marketing construction US$650,000 → US$465,000. The US$650,000 figure has no separate earlier dated observation in the evidence used here, so it is not treated as a historical ask. Later IPS surfaces expose code 20924 at US$467,500 on the detail page and US$475,000 in catalogue results, which is a simultaneous publication discrepancy unless a sequence can be independently established.

Area definitions can create another false movement. Parc 21 code 21639 is described as 93 sqm net and 115 sqm gross. Its total US$250,000 ask can be compared across the matched observations because the unit and total price align, but a price-per-square-metre series only makes sense if the denominator is held constant. Switching from gross to net can manufacture an apparent change even when the total ask has not moved.

An Updated field solves less than it appears to. It can show that a page record changed, but not which field changed or the moment a seller actually revised the ask. A dated history therefore attaches a price to the content that can be observed at that point; an update timestamp remains supporting metadata, not a substitute for the price observation itself.

Every listing history contains gaps. Two confirmed dates do not justify drawing a continuous line between them or assuming that the displayed price applied every day. J Tower 2 shows US$195,000 on 30 January and US$195,000 again on 27 June; the ask might have stayed unchanged, moved and returned, or changed in some other way between those dates. The available public evidence does not distinguish those paths, and the same limitation applies to each two-point history on this page.

A URL status is not a transaction status. An old ad can remain online after a sale, disappear when advertising ends, move to a new address, be reposted under another ID, or fail for a technical reason. “No confirmed public observation after this date” is therefore more accurate than “sold after this date.” The pages used for the histories were readable when checked on 5 October 2026, but an accessible page does not prove that the property is still available for purchase.

Web archives can preserve useful evidence, but their timestamp records the archive crawl, not the seller’s decision time. The Internet Archive also notes that dynamic pages may be incomplete and that missing resources can resolve to a different capture date or even to the live web. An archived page is valuable when the price and identifying details are actually present in the capture; a broken snapshot is not permission to reconstruct a missing number.

Current publication conflicts impose another stopping point. If one IPS surface exposes code 20924 at US$467,500 while catalogue results show US$475,000, the sound response is not to select whichever figure looks more plausible. Without evidence establishing publication order and the single operative ask, both remain conflicting public representations. Keeping that conflict visible is more informative than manufacturing a smooth time series.

The coverage is best read as a collection of verifiable intervals, not a complete diary of each apartment. Three units provide six directly comparable price points, while the boundary cases show where the method must stop. Future dated observations can extend those histories without inventing what happened inside the gaps.

For a buyer, the history is most useful as a test of a discount story. Axis Residences code 15313 provides a concrete anchor: the public ask moved from US$60,000 on 11 September to US$58,000 on 30 September. That is evidence that a lower amount was publicly attached to the same identifiable unit. It does not prove that US$60,000 was ever achieved in a transaction, and US$58,000 does not automatically become the seller’s minimum acceptable price.

An unchanged history changes the conversation in a different way. J Tower 2 code 21640 appears at US$195,000 in the January and June dated posts, while Parc 21 code 21639 appears at US$250,000 in its July and August points. There is no public evidence in those intervals that the seller had already cut the ask. The next comparison should be with genuinely close alternatives available now, not with an invented prior discount.

Conflicts across fields or publishing surfaces can be even more revealing in negotiation. When the same apartment is shown at different amounts at the same time, the relevant question is not how much the property appreciated, but which price and terms form the operative offer today. The Garden Residency II example makes that concrete: US$55,000 and US$47,000 sit around a listing that also involves a tenant and an ongoing instalment arrangement, so a single headline number can give an incomplete picture of the buyer’s cash obligation.

A unit’s own history does not replace a current market comparison. Even a confirmed move from US$60,000 to US$58,000 says nothing by itself about whether the apartment is better value than another unit in the same building, a nearby project or another home at the same budget. Two separate layers are needed: the unit history shows how the seller’s public position changed, while current alternatives show how competitive that position is now.

A market index or district median provides context; it does not arbitrate the value of one unit. Floor, condition, view, title, tenancy and payment structure can all pull a particular apartment away from the statistical centre. The strength of a matched-unit history is not that it declares what the home “should” be worth, but that it separates documented changes in the public ask from promotional anchors, mismatched price fields and assumptions about a completed sale.