New build-to-rent at 5.1 percent yield or a 1974 house at 6.8 with a roof question

I've got two houses I can realistically pursue in the same metro, forty minutes apart.

The first is a build-to-rent unit in a new subdivision, everything under warranty, likely capex near zero for eight or ten years, HOA in place, and it underwrites to about 5.1 percent unlevered yield on my numbers with a 10 percent management assumption. Rents in that pocket are supported by families who cannot buy at current prices, and the builder is still delivering phases, which means I'd be competing with new inventory on lease-up for a few years.

The second is a 1974 ranch in an established neighborhood, no HOA, 6.8 percent on the same assumptions. The roof has maybe four years left and the panel is original. Rents there have been steadier because nothing new gets built, but the rent is also 240 lower and the tenant profile skews to people who move more.

The 1.7 point spread looks like it gets consumed by the roof, the panel, and the mechanicals over a ten year hold, which would make the new house the same deal with less variance. But every model I build that says capex is zero for a decade has been wrong before, and the HOA can raise dues whenever it likes.

How do you weigh a known low-variance yield against a higher stated yield with lumpy capital coming?