i'm a beginner and still learning about how things work. i know that shares are generally better in returns than real estate, but i'm unclear.
generally speaking, if my sister and i purchase a unit and rent it out to help pay it off (250k purchase price, 130k deposit, 120k loan), won't i get a much better return than i would with shares. say i had 30k and she had 100k (total 130k deposit), and it gets paid off by us and the renters (we have average wages), and in 5 years time it also increases in value. we then sell it off for more than the purchase price. i get my (smaller) percentage (we use a lawyer to make it happen this way). surely my return would be much better than if i put 30k into shares. but aren't shares supposed to be better for returns? and even if it was just me buying the unit and i had eg 100k to start out with, the renters would help pay it off and the house might go up in value, so won't i still get a better return here than if i had 100k put into shares. just seeking to understand how it works and why shares are supposed to be better than real estate for investments (generally speaking of course).
does real estate in both these examples provide a better return (assuming normal results are obtained)? The fact that real estate may go up in value, AND renters help pay it off, seems to make it seem better than shares for returns. But shares are supposed to be better right for returns? I'm not getting it fully ...