By the Unity Stays directors, Marcus Chong & Gadir Al-Khatib · Last updated 12 August 2026
In short: Neither wins outright: short lets usually earn more gross but only sometimes more net once cleaning, commission and utilities are deducted, and they demand daily work a tenancy does not. Since the furnished holiday lettings regime ended in April 2025, both face the same finance-cost restriction, so compare net against net for your specific property.
Compare net against net, or do not bother
The comparison most people run is a short-let gross against a tenancy rent, and it is meaningless. Both figures need reducing to what actually reaches the owner.
Buy-to-let: take the monthly rent, then remove a void allowance, letting or management fees, maintenance, insurance and any period of non-payment. A headline rent is not net either.
Short let: take gross booking revenue, then remove platform commission, cleaning per changeover, linen, consumables, utilities, council tax or business rates, broadband, software, management, insurance and a replacement provision.
Compared properly, the gap is usually smaller than short-let marketing suggests and larger than tenancy defenders claim — and on some properties it inverts entirely.
The workload difference is the real one
A buy-to-let is largely passive between tenancies. A short let is a business with daily operations: guest messages, pricing, changeovers, restocking, maintenance, and someone available when something fails at nine on a Sunday.
Even fully managed, it demands more attention — statements to read, decisions about pricing strategy and capital spend, and a property that wears faster because it is used harder by more people.
That is the honest trade. Higher gross, higher costs, more work, more upside, more variance.
Risk sits in different places
Buy-to-let risk is concentrated: a bad tenant, arrears, a long void, or a difficult possession process. Rare events with large consequences.
Short-let risk is distributed: seasonality, platform dependency, regulatory change, a bad review cluster, a cleaner who stops answering. Frequent small events, plus the structural risk that a council changes the rules.
Short letting also has more ways to be stopped outright — licensing, planning, an Article 4 direction, a lease clause, a lender condition. A tenancy is rarely prohibited; a short let often is.
The tax advantage has gone
Until April 2025, furnished holiday lettings sat outside the finance-cost restriction, so short lets could deduct mortgage interest in full while buy-to-let could not. That was a genuine structural advantage.
The FHL regime was abolished. Both are now within the same restriction, capital allowances on furniture are no longer available in the same way, and certain capital gains reliefs have gone.
So the case for short letting now rests entirely on what the property earns and costs, which is a cleaner basis for a decision even if it is a less flattering one. Our tax changes guide sets out what moved.
When the tenancy plainly wins
It is worth being blunt about this, because the honest answer is often the tenancy.
A property in an area with no year-round demand driver. A leasehold flat where the consents are doubtful. An owner who needs a specific figure every month regardless of season. A property whose low months do not cover the fixed costs. Anywhere licensing or the 90-night rule makes the numbers unworkable.
Our income calculator compares the two on your own figures and is deliberately built to tell you when the long let wins. It says so more often than you might expect.
General guidance for comparison, not investment or tax advice. Your position depends on the property, the location and your circumstances. Take proper advice.