The four management models differ by cost structure, guarantee coverage, transparency, leasing practice, and exit freedom. Compare traditional PM, sublease, self-management, and NOCOS on the same decision criteria.
Rental management is actually a four-way choice.
It isn't simply "outsource or not." Fee structure, income ceiling, and how risk is borne differ sharply across four distinct options. Start by understanding each one — along with its pitfall.
Traditional PM
Major or local management companies. Conventional rental-management outsourcing, covering tenant support, rent collection, remittance and repairs.
Sublease
Master lease. You receive rent even during vacancies — but only 80–90% of expected rent, with the risk of forced rent reductions down the line.
Self-management
The owner handles everything. No management fee, but tenant support, trouble, and legal response all fall on you.
NOCOS
Flat per-unit management fee + full rent guarantee on every unit + direct remittance + transparency. Breaks the rent-linked model and solves operating burden and lost revenue at the same time.
15 criteria reveal how the four models really differ.
Fees, remittance flow, leasing, guarantee, transparency, exit freedom — every dimension that matters to a rental decision, consolidated into a single page. The NOCOS column is highlighted in copper.
| Criterion | Traditional PMMajor / local | SubleaseMaster lease | Self-managementOwner-operated | NOCOSFlat per-unit + full guarantee |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fee structure | Rent-linked (3–5%) | Spread model (10–20% of expected rent) | ✓ ¥0 | Flat per unit (¥0–2,000 / unit) |
| Rent ceilingat full occupancy | 95–97% of rent (after fee) | ✕ Capped at 80–90% of expected | ✓ 100% of rent | 100% of rent − flat per-unit fee (small) |
| Remittance flow | Via management company (net-of-fee, next month) | Via sublease company (fixed monthly) | Direct from tenant | ✓ Direct remittance from the guarantor to the owner's account |
| Default risk | Guarantor enrollment typical (plan-dependent) | ✓ Sublease company pays | ✕ Owner absorbs directly | ✓ Guarantor enrollment on every unit, up to 24 months |
| Tenant leasing | Tends to favor in-house channels | Via sublease company | ✕ Owner sources broker | ✓ All major portals + local brokers, no listing lock-in |
| Rent-setting flexibility | Depends on staff experience | ✕ Set by sublease company / reduction risk at renewal | Owner's own judgment | ✓ Optimal price recommended via AI market analysis |
| Renewal rent revision | Typically frozen | ✕ Risk of rent-reduction proposal | You decide and negotiate | ✓ Market upside reflected in our proposal |
| Exit freedom | Early-termination penalty applies | ✕ Hard to exit (protected by tenancy law) | ✓ Free to exit | ✓ No penalty, cancel anytime |
| 24/7 trouble response | Standard | Standard | ✕ Owner handles | ✓ Standard / first response and repair dispatch handled end-to-end |
| Lapsed-fire-insurance risk | Plan-dependent | Plan-dependent | ✕ Owner-managed | ✓ When you select our recommended insurance, the guarantor performs subrogation |
| Transparencystatements & history | Standard monthly report | ✕ Tenant and rent data not visible | ✓ Everything in your own hands | ✓ 100% paperless / case histories shared with photos in the cloud |
| Tax-filing evidence | Remittance statement from management company | Remittance statement from sublease company | You tally it yourself | ✓ Remittance statement issued by the guarantor — usable as-is |
| Repair cost transparency | Prime + subcontractor stack — breakdown unclear | Arranged by sublease company — breakdown unclear | ✓ You order and track yourself | ✓ Cost + fixed-rate fee (10% / 5% / 3%) fully separated and disclosed |
| Owner's workload | Low (delegated) | Lowest (fully hands-off) | ✕ Heavy (you handle it all) | Low (delegated — yet fully visible) |
| Upside potential | Limited (rent-linked, little room to cut) | ✕ Structurally capped | Large given expertise / large risk too | ✓ Maximized via cost reduction + rent optimization together |
How big does the gap get over a year?
Hold the assumptions constant and the annual owner take-home diverges sharply across the four models. Sublease feels safe thanks to fixed remittance, but is capped at 85% of expected rent. NOCOS combines cost reduction with a 100% rent guarantee, delivering meaningfully more take-home than traditional PM.
* Illustrative model on identical assumptions and full occupancy. Actual figures vary by property, plan and vacancy. NOCOS delivers take-home close to self-management without any of the operating workload.
Which model fits you?
Each option has its merits. We've mapped where to start, based on what you weight most.
"I want income even when units are vacant."
→ Sublease. But you're capped at 80–90% of expected rent, with rent-reduction proposals and difficult exits in store. Over the long run, total income takes a major hit.
→ NOCOS + rent guarantee also covers delinquencies caused by vacancy as standard. The right choice if you're optimizing for long-run upside.
"Every yen of fee matters."
→ Self-management is cheapest. But every tenant interaction, leasing, trouble call, repair and arrears chase falls on you — only viable if you have real operating capacity.
→ Otherwise, NOCOS breaks the rent-linked model with a flat per-unit fee. At ¥150,000 rent, the saving versus traditional PM is substantial.
"Hands-off — but still transparent."
→ NOCOS. The classic "outsource = black box" trade-off solved structurally. Case histories, repair costs and remittance statements are all shared in the cloud, with photos. Hands-off and transparent at the same time.