Which is actually more passive, a single net lease building or a share of a fund

Passive income with no second job is the goal, and two paths keep coming up pointing in opposite directions. One path is buying a single tenant building outright, a national chain in it, on a triple net lease so the tenant covers taxes, insurance, and upkeep. Rent shows up and in theory there is little to manage for years. The risk is concentration: one tenant, and if that tenant leaves the owner goes from full income to zero income and a tax bill on an empty box. The other path is a fund or a public retail REIT holding dozens of centers. Capital is spread across many tenants, someone else runs operations, and a public position can be sold on any given day. The tradeoff there is owning no property to point to, fees taken before any distribution, and a share price that moves for reasons unrelated to the stores themselves. The useful question is which is more passive in practice rather than on paper. Owning the building looks hands off until the roof or a vacancy shows up. Owning shares looks hands off until the cost of control given up becomes visible. Anyone who has run both is worth listening to on this.