Fractional | Dubai launched on 1 July 2026. Rhys Holding and Sam Loyd, both experienced across the GCC, the UK and Singapore, with more than 350 vetted executives behind the offer. CFOs, COOs, CTOs, CMOs, CROs, CHROs and non-executive directors. Real business, real founders, and the market needed it.
Go to the site and try to see one of those 350 people. You cannot. There are no profile pages. No names, no photographs. The number is on the homepage and the people are behind a form.
Where the 350 actually sit
We checked, because the figure is doing a lot of work in this market.
The same claim appears word for word on the group's Abu Dhabi and Singapore sites. The parent is Fractional Global, and its own site describes "a collective of 350+ curated executives" across 30 hubs, of which 10 are live: Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Bali, Bangkok, Ho Chi Minh City, Hong Kong, Jakarta, Kuala Lumpur, Manila and Singapore. Twenty more are in development, London, New York, Riyadh and Doha among them.
So the 350 is one worldwide collective, and Dubai is one of thirty addresses it stands behind. Their Singapore page puts it plainly: the collective "stands behind the engagement."
How many of the 350 have run a mandate in the UAE, hold an Emirates ID, or have a DIFC track record is a number nobody has published, including them.
Why they hide the bench
Because the moment a company can see the executive, the company can call the executive, and neither of them needs the network next month.
This is the oldest problem in the category and it has a name: disintermediation. It is why executive search hides the people until an engagement letter is signed. It is why every talent network that published its supply either added a fee nobody paid or turned into a directory that earned nothing.
Hiding the bench is not laziness. It is the defensible move, and we would not call it wrong.
Why we are doing the opposite anyway
Two reasons, and the second matters more than the first.
The first is that a hidden bench gives the leader nothing. You are one anonymous line item inside a global collective. You cannot point anyone at your entry, because there is no entry to point at. Every unit of value from being listed accrues to the network.
The second is how appointments actually start here. A chief executive does not open a directory. They ask someone they trust who they should talk to about AI, and that person sends a link, usually in a message, usually within a minute. Whatever that link opens is what gets considered.
If the link opens a form, the form gets the introduction. If it opens a person, the person does.
So every leader on Atlas has a permanent address under their own name, and it is theirs. Email signature, profile banner, the reply in a message thread. Every send is a company arriving without anyone buying a click.
The part we have not solved
Publishing the profiles is the strategy and it is also the leak. A named, contactable leader plus a company that has met them equals an engagement Atlas may never see.
Three defences. The introduction fee is contracted at first contact with a twelve-month tail, which is standard search practice and unpleasant to enforce. The fee is kept small enough that routing around it is not worth anyone's argument, so one month of retainer once rather than a percentage of everything. And the company is given something it loses by leaving: a replacement inside ninety days, in the same category, without paying twice.
We expect leakage anyway. We are accepting it, because the public page is the one thing the incumbent cannot copy without abandoning their own positioning.
The question that still needs an answer
Will a senior Gulf executive stand in public with a rate band attached to their name?
Discretion is often the point in this market. A CFO who publishes a monthly band has set a ceiling with every future client, and knows it. So the rate band is a switch on the leader's own page, and it can show on request instead.
The name and the mandates stay public, and whether that is a step too far is the open question. If seven of the first ten leaders we ask decline, the public page is the wrong idea, and we would rather learn that in August than in March.
You can be one of the ten. Claim a page, or tell us why you would not.