When a developer or investor finances an ultra-premium landbank in the Gulf, a trophy parcel held for future development or appreciation, it frequently faces a direct choice between a Shariah-compliant Sukuk and a conventional private credit facility. Both can fund the acquisition and the long hold of high-value land, but they differ on cost, speed, flexibility, investor reach and the signal they send, and the right choice is not obvious. This paper conducts a structured cost-of-capital showdown between the two, using an indicative dataset calibrated to 2026 GCC conditions. It decomposes the all-in cost of each into its components, traces the cumulative cost over a multi-year hold, sets out the Ijara-based structure of a land Sukuk and the structure of a conventional private credit facility, and compares the two across the dimensions that matter beyond headline cost. The analysis finds that the land Sukuk is frequently competitive on, and sometimes cheaper than, conventional private credit on an all-in basis, that it reaches a wider pool of compliant capital and carries a positive signalling value, but that conventional private credit is faster to arrange and more flexible in its structuring. The decision therefore turns on the financier priorities: cost and investor reach favour the Sukuk, while speed and flexibility favour private credit. The paper develops a decision framework, examines the structuring and investor-base considerations, presents three indicative case studies including a dual-track competitive process, and offers an implementation roadmap. A central practical conclusion is that the most sophisticated financiers run a dual-track process, putting the two routes in competition to discipline pricing and secure the best of both.