Florence vs Rome Airbnb: which city should you actually buy in

Same occupancy rate, similar rate compression, but a £2.9K revenue gap and vastly different supply pictures. Here's what the data says about where your money works harder.

VS

The headline that will stop you in your tracks: Florence and Rome are sitting at identical 30% occupancy, yet Florence is generating €2.9K more revenue per listing per year. Same demand signal on the surface, meaningfully different outcome underneath. That gap isn't coming from some exotic mix of luxury villas skewing the average — it's mostly the €8 nightly rate difference compounding across bookings, set against a supply base that is less than half the size.

This piece will work through what that supply gap actually means for a new entrant, why Rome's accelerating occupancy growth isn't the buying signal it first appears to be, and where regulation does or doesn't change the picture for either market. If you've shortlisted these two and need to commit to one, the answer is probably already hiding in the listings count.

Where the money actually is

Florence has 10,305 active listings against Rome's 27,668. That's not a marginal difference — Rome has 2.7 times the supply competing for its guests. Both cities posted rate compression of around 8% year-on-year, so neither is escaping the broader softening across Italian short-term markets. But compression hurts more when you're one of 27,000 than one of 10,000, because the pressure to discount to stay visible is structurally higher in Rome.

The €8 ADR gap in Florence's favour sounds modest until you run it through a year. At 30% occupancy across 365 nights, that's roughly 109 booked nights. An €8 premium on each of those is about €875 annually — not the whole €2.9K spread, but it's a third of it just from rate. The rest is almost certainly variance in how many nights the median Rome listing actually fills versus Florence, even if the headline occupancy figure reads the same. Medians hide a lot.

What the data can't tell you here is purchase price. Florence's historic centre commands serious acquisition costs, and if Rome lets you buy at a materially lower per-square-metre figure, the revenue gap could be absorbed in the mortgage. That's the one honest unknown I'd stress-test before signing anything in either city.

The shape of the year

Florence peaks in October at 65% and Rome in September at 63% — close enough that neither has a structural edge at the top of the curve. The trough tells a more useful story: Florence bottoms at 31% in December, Rome at 28%. Three percentage points doesn't sound like much, but in a slow month it's the difference between covering fixed costs and dipping into reserves. Florence's floor is marginally more forgiving.

For a seasonal operator — someone who lives in the property part of the year or runs a portfolio they actively manage through shoulder months — Rome's sharper trough makes the cash flow modelling messier. Florence's occupancy curve is a little flatter and a little higher at the bottom, which suits a hands-off or remotely managed setup better. If you're the kind of investor who wants to let an agent run things year-round without a cash injection every winter, Florence is simply the lower-stress option.

Where the rules bite

Neither city currently imposes a night cap, which removes the single biggest risk that's been kneecapping markets like London or Amsterdam. Italy's national framework still requires registration and tax compliance through the cedolare secca flat rate, and both cities expect proper guest registration with local authorities. None of that is unusual or especially burdensome if you're set up correctly from the start.

The practical filter here isn't the current rules — it's the trajectory. Rome, as the capital and Italy's most politically visible tourist city, carries more regulatory tail risk than Florence. Rome's city government has been making noises about tighter controls on short-term lets in central neighbourhoods for several years. Florence has its own pressures, but the political temperature around tourist housing in Rome is higher. Neither market is safe to buy in assuming the rules stay static forever, but Rome asks you to take that risk across a much larger, more scrutinised supply pool.

The call

Florence wins this comparison for most buyers. It generates more revenue from a structurally less crowded market, holds up better through winter, and carries slightly lower regulatory heat. The 87% entire-home share versus Rome's 81% also suggests Florence guests are more consistently booking whole properties, which is the inventory type that typically commands better rates and fewer operational headaches.

The honest case for Rome is scale and liquidity. If you're buying multiple units, Rome's deeper market means more acquisition opportunities and probably an easier exit when you want one. A buyer with strong local management already in place, a genuine long-term view on Rome's tourism fundamentals, and the ability to weather a tighter regulatory environment in a few years might find the lower revenue acceptable in exchange for those structural advantages. For everyone else, Florence is the cleaner answer.

Frequently asked questions

Methodology. Figures are medians across active listings from Inside Airbnb's 2025-09-22 snapshot, refreshed automatically as new snapshots land. The table and chart above always show the latest data; the commentary is re-written when the numbers move materially.