According to Rodrigues, the logic in real estate is usually less “emotional” than in luxury goods: exclusivity does not always translate into value. What defines an asset’s price in practice is the quality of the income stream, the predictability of cash flow, and contractual stability — regardless of whether the property has one tenant or ten.

“For us, the initial filter is location, income quality, and contract stability — not just how many tenants there are, but who those tenants are and how resilient their revenues are throughout the economic cycle.”

Her statement reveals a key point: the difference between multi-tenant and single-tenant assets is not simply the number of companies occupying a building, but the risk profile that each contractual structure carries — and how the market prices that risk.

The perception that multi-tenant properties are worth less is usually linked to three factors: a greater need for management, higher turnover risk (churn), and more volatile income.

Unlike a single-tenant asset, where management tends to be more passive, a multi-tenant property operates as an ecosystem of contracts. In practice, that means dealing simultaneously with multiple fronts: renegotiations, rent adjustments, rent-free periods, fit-out requests, operational issues, and continuous tenant relationship management.

In addition, the greater the number of tenants, the higher the probability of changes over time. In a multi-tenant building, it is more common for companies to grow and require a different area, reduce space, shut down operations, seek lower costs, or migrate to newer buildings. This movement increases churn and, consequently, requires constant tenant replacement.

It is precisely this operational component that tends to show up in pricing.

“The market usually prices higher cap rates for multi-tenant assets, reflecting a premium for operational risk and the need for more active management. A single-tenant asset — especially with a high-quality tenant and long lease terms — tends to deliver lower cap rates in absolute terms, but with greater cash flow predictability.”

In other words: it is not that multi-tenant properties are inherently “worse,” but they tend to require higher returns to compensate for complexity and the risk of income volatility.

If, on the one hand, multi-tenant assets carry a risk premium, on the other, they can reduce one of an investor’s biggest fears: concentration risk.

In a single-tenant asset, the tenant’s departure can mean the immediate loss of 100% of the income. In a multi-tenant property, vacancy is typically partial, diluting the impact on cash flow.

“It reduces the risk of an ‘all or nothing’ situation. When a tenant leaves, you lose only part of the income — unlike single-tenant, where vacancy can wipe out revenue immediately,” Rodrigues says.

She reinforces that, from a valuation perspective, a single-tenant asset can be riskier than a multi-tenant one — as long as the multi-tenant property has well-structured leases.

“From a cash flow and valuation standpoint, a building with just one tenant is riskier if they leave than a well-staggered multi-tenant building,” she says.

The main trap in multi-tenant properties lies in lease expiry concentration. A building with many leases expiring within the same period can “simulate” the concentration risk of a single-tenant asset, especially during weak market conditions.

“Multi-tenant assets with lease expiries concentrated in the short term simulate the same concentration risk and can generate vacancy spikes that pressure NOI, especially if that happens during a weaker market moment. The key is designing the lease expiry schedule, which minimizes the risk of dense vacancy windows,” she explains.

In practice, the stability of a multi-tenant asset depends less on the number of tenants and more on three elements: credit quality, lease length, and dispersion of lease expiries.

Multi-tenant properties are indeed often priced with higher cap rates because they require active management and carry higher operational risk. However, well-stabilized multi-tenant assets — with resilient tenants, staggered lease expiries, and controlled vacancy — can reduce concentration risk and come closer to the defensive profile of a single-tenant asset.

In the end, the issue is not exclusivity. It is predictability.