Is owning one net lease building really more passive than owning a piece of a fund?

I want boring income and no second job. Two paths keep coming up and they seem to point opposite directions.

One: buy a single-tenant building outright, national chain in it, triple net lease so the tenant pays the taxes, the insurance and the upkeep. Rent shows up, and in theory I do nothing for years. What worries me is that I'd own one building with one tenant. If that tenant leaves I go from full income to zero income and a big tax bill on an empty box.

Two: buy into a fund or a public retail REIT that holds dozens of centers. My money is spread across a lot of tenants, someone else handles everything, and I can sell a public one on any Tuesday. What worries me there is that I own no property I can point at, the fees come out before I see anything, and the share price moves for reasons that have nothing to do with the stores.

So the question I actually have is which of these is more passive in practice, not on paper. Owning the building sounds hands off until the roof or a vacancy shows up. Owning shares sounds hands off until you look at what you gave up in control and cost.

Curious how the room splits, especially from anyone who has done both.