Lesser of the two evils..

[NA Jones]

Alright landlords, in your professional opinion.

Which would you rather deal with - longer vacancy periods or higher tenant turnover?  

By that I mean - Property A sits vacant for 6-9 months, then gets a tenant for 3 years.  Property B turns over a new tenant every year, but only has 1 month vacancy in between. Assuming that the numbers work out the same (cost of vacancy equals the exact cost of turnover) which would you rather have sitting on your hands?

[Hattie Dizmond]

I agree with @Nathan Brooks 

You don't want either.  The other thing that hasn't been mentioned is the opportunity costs associated with either high turnover or prolonged periods of vacancy.  Either case, particularly if you are self-managing the property, is going to take time away from your other activities.  You're going to be dealing with the showing, screening and make ready tasks associated with getting a new tenant or turning over a property for a new tenant.  What opportunities did you miss, while you were focused on those tasks?  What is your time worth?  Those are very real considerations I would factor into my equation.