CalcStack — free, instant, no signup. The interactive calculator loads automatically.
$1,800 that sits 4 weeks earns LESS than $1,700 that fills in 1 — $19,937 vs $20,007 effective. Price to fill, not to dream.
The classic landlord mistake is pricing for the best month instead of the best year. Effective annual income is rent × 12 minus vacancy loss, and each vacant week costs about 23% of a month's rent — so a $1,800 ask that sits 4 weeks ($19,937 effective) loses to a $1,700 ask that fills in one ($20,007). The higher price has to fill within 3.8 weeks just to tie. This calculator compares any two asks honestly, shows the cost of each vacant week, and gives the exact fill deadline where the higher rent stops winning. Price to fill, not to dream — and re-price fast when the market votes no.
Landlords use it before listing: $1,800 that sits 4 weeks earns less than $1,700 that fills in 1 — every vacant week costs 23% of a month, so the last $100 of ask is the most expensive money in landlording.
From the market, not from hope. Days-on-market is visible on Zillow and Apartments.com listings — pull 5–8 true comps (same beds, same neighborhood, similar condition) and note how long the ones priced AT market sat versus the ones priced above; the delta between the two groups is your vacancy slope. Adjust for season: winter listings in most markets run 1.5–2× longer than peak season (May–August, when families move between school years), so a December pricing decision should be more aggressive than a June one. Adjust for unit friction: no parking, no laundry, third-floor walk-up, or a no-pets policy each add days. The tell that you overpriced: quiet first week — serious renters scan new listings within days, and a listing with no inquiries in 7 days has been voted down. One more honest input: your vacancy estimate should include the gap between "application approved" and "lease signed and moved in," which adds a week landlords forget to count.
Yes, but narrower than landlords hope. It works when the unit has a genuine, visible differentiator that comps lack — dedicated parking in a street-parking neighborhood, in-unit laundry, a fenced yard with pets allowed, a renovated kitchen in a dated building — and even then, the premium that clears fast is typically 5–8%, not 15%. It also works with time on your side: a current tenant paying below market on a month-to-month while you test higher asks for a future vacancy costs nothing to experiment with. Where premium pricing reliably fails: cosmetic-only differentiation (new paint is not a differentiator), soft markets with rising inventory, and any listing past day 10 — at that point the listing is stale, the algorithm buries it, and price cuts attract worse applicants than correct initial pricing. The applicant-pool effect is the hidden cost: overpriced listings select for applicants rejected elsewhere. Run both asks here with honest weeks-to-fill, and if the premium case wins, set the fill deadline as a hard re-price date before listing.
Strategically, yes — and the math here shows why it is cheaper than it looks. Pricing $25–50 under comp median buys three things: speed (vacancy is the most expensive line item — one week saved at $1,700 rent is $392), applicant depth (10 qualified applicants instead of 2 means choosing the best tenant, not the only tenant — and tenant quality drives turnover cost, damage, and late payments for years), and goodwill (a tenant who knows they have a deal renews more and complains less — feeding directly into the turnover-cost math). The below-market move that backfires: pricing so low it signals a problem unit — stay within 3–5% of comps. The annual-review alternative some landlords prefer: price at market, offer a concession (one week free) instead of a lower rent — it fills fast while keeping the lease number high for future comp-setting and rent-raise percentages. Both beat sitting vacant. The one rule that dominates all of it: a vacant week costs 23% of a month — every pricing decision is really a vacancy decision.