Virtual showings stopped being a novelty a few years ago. They are now a standard option in most Ontario rental markets, and the question has shifted from whether they are possible to whether they are actually worth doing. Those are very different questions.

This post focuses on the return side of that calculation: what virtual showings actually save you, what they cost you, and where they tend to fall short. If you are trying to decide whether to offer them at all, we have a separate post on that decision. Here we are talking about value, not strategy. What do you actually get back for the time and effort you put in?

At Blue Anchor Property Management, we manage long-term residential rentals from Oshawa to Belleville, with properties as far north as Campbellford and down into Picton. We have run virtual showings, in-person showings, and self-showings across all of those markets. We have seen what converts, what wastes time, and what creates problems later. The honest answer is that virtual showings are worth it in some situations and not in others, and most landlords have not thought through which situation they are actually in.

What You Are Actually Measuring

Before you can answer whether virtual showings are worth it, you need to decide what you are measuring. Most landlords default to time savings, and yes, not driving to a property three times a week for appointments that cancel last minute has real value. But time is only one dimension.

The fuller picture includes how quickly the unit fills, the quality of applicants who come through, the likelihood that a virtual viewer converts to a signed lease, and whether the tenant who moves in based on a virtual showing turns out to be a good long-term fit. A virtual showing that saves you two hours but results in a tenant who causes problems six months later was not worth it. The time savings were real. The outcome was not.

The landlords who get the most value from virtual showings are those who treat them as a filtering tool rather than a replacement for the rest of the process. They use virtual showings to narrow the field, then invest their time in applicants who are genuinely serious. That changes the return on investment calculation entirely. Good tenant screening still has to happen regardless of how the showing was conducted.

The Time Savings Are Real, But Unevenly Distributed

Virtual showings do save time. A well-produced video walkthrough or a live video call can eliminate multiple in-person appointments with people who are not serious or not qualified. In markets like Oshawa or Cobourg, where a landlord might be fielding a large volume of inquiries for a single vacancy, that filtering function is genuinely valuable.

The time savings are most pronounced when you are dealing with out-of-town applicants. Our coverage area includes a significant number of people relocating from the Greater Toronto Area to communities like Belleville, Trenton, and Picton. These applicants cannot easily come in person before committing to a showing appointment. A virtual option lets them self-select before anyone wastes a trip. Military postings to CFB Trenton are a good example of this: an incoming member in another province cannot tour a unit in person, and a virtual showing is often the only practical option before they commit.

However, the time savings are less significant in slower markets or for properties that attract mostly local applicants. If you are renting a two-bedroom unit in Trenton and most of your inquiries come from people already living nearby, the logistics of in-person showings are not that burdensome to begin with. In those cases, the time argument for virtual showings weakens considerably.

The savings are also front-loaded. You save time early in the funnel. You do not necessarily save time later, because serious applicants still want to see the unit in person before signing, and you still need to do thorough screening regardless of how the showing happened.

Conversion Rates and Where They Drop Off

Virtual showings typically have lower conversion rates than in-person showings. That is not a flaw in the format. It is actually part of how they are supposed to work. Virtual showings are meant to filter out people who are not a fit, so the pool who proceed to apply should be smaller but more qualified.

The problem arises when landlords treat a virtual showing as a complete substitute for an in-person visit rather than a step in the process. When a tenant signs a lease based solely on a video, you are more likely to see move-in complaints about things that were visible but did not register on screen: noise levels, natural light at different times of day, the feel of the neighbourhood, parking logistics, the sound of the building. These are not defects you concealed. They are simply things that do not translate well to video.

The best outcomes we see at Blue Anchor happen when virtual showings are used to qualify interest and in-person showings are used to close. Tenants who have already done a virtual showing and then come in person are typically more decisive. They already know the layout. They are coming to confirm, not to explore. That makes in-person showings faster and more productive when virtual showings precede them.

The conversion drop-off is also more pronounced for certain property types. A clean, well-lit one-bedroom with a simple layout shows well on video. A multi-level unit with unusual floor plan features, older finishes, or a location where the surroundings matter as much as the interior is harder to represent accurately. Landlords with those properties tend to see more friction when they rely heavily on virtual showings.

Where Virtual Showings Fall Short

It is worth being direct about the limitations, because they are real and they affect outcomes.

• Sensory gaps. Video cannot convey smell, sound, or the physical feel of a space. A unit above a commercial kitchen, next to a busy road, or with a persistent moisture issue may look fine on screen. Tenants who discover these things after moving in are more likely to be dissatisfied, and dissatisfied tenants create more work.
• Fraud risk. Virtual showings make it easier for applicants to misrepresent themselves or their situation, and they make it harder for landlords to pick up on the signals that an in-person visit would surface. AI-generated rental fraud is a growing concern in Ontario, and a process that is entirely virtual from inquiry to application carries more exposure. Our post on AI rental fraud in Ontario covers this in more detail.
• Reduced landlord credibility. Some applicants, particularly families and longer-term renters, interpret a landlord who will only show virtually as either disorganized or hiding something. That perception is not always fair, but it is real and it affects who applies.
• Legal exposure at move-in. If a tenant moves in based on a virtual showing and then disputes the condition of the unit, the absence of a shared in-person walk-through can complicate your position. A thorough move-in inspection signed by both parties matters regardless of how the showing was conducted, but it matters more when the tenant has never physically been in the unit before signing.

The Cost Side of the Equation

Virtual showings are not free. The costs are easy to underestimate because most of them are time rather than money, but they are real.

Producing a video walkthrough that actually represents the unit well takes time and some skill. A shaky phone video shot in poor light does more harm than good. If you are doing live video calls, you need to be available at times that work for applicants, which often means evenings and weekends. Coordinating those calls, following up, and managing the inbox that comes with a listing that accepts virtual inquiries adds up.

There is also the cost of the setup itself. If you are listing a vacant unit, you may need to stage it or at minimum ensure it is clean and well-lit before filming. That is work you would do for in-person showings too, but virtual showings compress the timeline because the video goes live immediately and applicants form impressions quickly.

To illustrate with a simple example: suppose a landlord spends three hours producing and editing a video walkthrough, then fields eight virtual showing requests over two weeks, four of which convert to in-person visits, two of which apply, and one of whom is approved. If the unit would have filled in the same timeframe with in-person showings alone, the virtual component added cost without meaningfully accelerating the outcome. If the unit fills two weeks faster because the virtual option attracted an out-of-town applicant who would not have applied otherwise, the math looks very different. The value depends entirely on the specifics of your market and your property.

Understanding the true cost of vacancy is the right frame for this calculation. If your unit sits empty for an extra two weeks because you did not offer a virtual option to a qualified out-of-town applicant, that is a real loss. If your unit fills just as quickly without virtual showings, the added complexity is not justified.

When Virtual Showings Make Financial Sense

Based on what we see across our portfolio, virtual showings tend to pay off in these situations:

• The property is in a market that draws significant relocation traffic, particularly from the GTA corridor.
• The unit is in good condition and photographs or films well without significant staging effort.
• The landlord is managing multiple vacancies simultaneously and needs to filter a high volume of inquiries efficiently.
• The virtual showing is one step in a multi-step process, not the only step before a lease is signed.
• The landlord has a clear, documented screening process that does not depend on in-person impressions to function.

Virtual showings tend to add cost without proportionate return in these situations:

• The property is in a local market where most applicants are already nearby and in-person showings are easy to arrange.
• The unit has features that are difficult to convey on video, such as unusual layout, noise considerations, or location-dependent appeal.
• The landlord does not have a structured process for following up with virtual viewers and moving them toward an application.
• The landlord is treating the virtual showing as the end of the qualification process rather than the beginning.

Frequently Asked Questions

Do tenants who view virtually end up being worse tenants?

Not inherently. The quality of a tenant has far more to do with your screening process than with how the showing was conducted. That said, tenants who have never physically seen a unit before moving in do tend to surface more move-in concerns, and some of those concerns are legitimate. The risk is not that virtual viewers are worse tenants. The risk is that a process that skips the in-person step misses information that would have been relevant to both parties.

Is a video walkthrough better than a live video call showing?

They serve different purposes. A pre-recorded walkthrough is more efficient for initial filtering because applicants can watch it on their own time and self-select before contacting you. A live video call is better for applicants who are seriously interested and have specific questions. Using both in sequence tends to produce better results than relying on either one alone.

Can a tenant legally refuse to do an in-person showing and still expect to sign a lease?

There is no obligation under the Residential Tenancies Act for a landlord to accept a tenant who has not viewed the unit in person. You can set your own process for how showings work. What you cannot do is use the showing process to discriminate on grounds protected by the Ontario Human Rights Code. If an applicant has a disability that makes in-person viewing difficult, you may need to consider accommodation. Outside of that, you are entitled to require an in-person visit before signing.

How does the N4 notice change under Bill 60 affect the risk calculation for virtual showings?

Bill 60 received Royal Assent in November 2025 and shortened the N4 notice period from 14 days to 7 days, effective September 21, 2026. It also introduced a written persistent late payment test for N8 applications. These changes affect what happens after a tenant moves in, not the showing process itself. But they are a reminder that tenant quality matters more than ever, and anything in your leasing process that reduces your ability to assess an applicant carefully, including over-reliance on virtual showings, carries downstream risk. You can read more about Ontario eviction rule changes in 2026 for the full picture.

Does Blue Anchor use virtual showings for the properties it manages?

Yes, selectively. We use virtual showings as a filtering tool for properties that attract out-of-town applicants or generate high inquiry volume. We do not use them as a substitute for in-person visits before a lease is signed. Our screening process is the same regardless of how the showing was conducted, and we document the condition of every unit at move-in with a signed inspection report.

Blue Anchor manages rentals along the 401 from Oshawa to Belleville. See the communities we serve and our tenant placement service.

The Bottom Line

Virtual showings are a tool, not a strategy. They save real time in the right circumstances and add unnecessary complexity in the wrong ones. The landlords who get the most value from them are those who use them deliberately, as one step in a structured leasing process, rather than as a convenience that replaces the parts of the process that actually protect them.

If you want to talk through how Blue Anchor handles showings, screening, and tenant placement across our coverage area, take a look at our pricing and services page or reach out directly. We are happy to walk through what makes sense for your specific property and market.