Finance · housing

Rent vs Buy Calculator

Net cost of buying vs. renting and investing the difference — the real comparison.
Opportunity-cost model
$400k home · $2,200 rent · 7yr

Buying

$
%
%
%
%
%

Renting & investing

$
%
%

Time horizon

yr

Net cost after N years

Buying
$0
Renting + investing
$0

Net cost over time

buy (net of equity) rent (net of investment growth)
Field notes

Why "rent is throwing money away" misses the point

How it works

Comparing net cost, not monthly payment

Comparing "mortgage payment" to "rent" misses most of the real cost on both sides. Buying tallies the down payment, closing costs, every mortgage payment, property tax, insurance and maintenance over the horizon — then subtracts the equity actually built (home value minus remaining loan balance, minus selling costs) to get a net cost. Renting tallies total rent paid — but credits the renter with investing the money a buyer would have tied up in a down payment and closing costs, growing at a market return, and subtracts that investment balance from total rent paid. Whichever net cost is lower is the better deal for the assumptions entered — this is a genuinely assumption-sensitive comparison, not a fixed answer.

Worked example

A $400,000 home, 20% down, 6.5% mortgage, against $2,200 rent with the down payment invested at 7%: renting is the cheaper net position through year 15 (rent net cost $229k vs buy's $253k), but buying overtakes it by year 20 ($276k vs $338k) as accumulated home equity and appreciation compound past the ongoing cost of rising rent.

Why does renting often win over shorter horizons?

Buying has large upfront costs (down payment, closing costs) and selling costs at the end — over a short horizon, those fixed costs aren't amortized over enough years to be beaten by the relatively slow, compounding advantage of home equity and appreciation.

Why does the investment return assumption matter so much?

It's crediting the renter with what the down payment would have earned elsewhere — a higher assumed return makes renting look better since that opportunity cost of a buyer's tied-up cash grows faster; a lower one narrows or eliminates renting's advantage.

Isn't rent "throwing money away" compared to building equity?

Only if you ignore what the money not spent on a down payment, closing costs, property tax, insurance and maintenance could otherwise be doing — a renter who actually invests that difference isn't losing it, they're compounding it elsewhere instead of in home equity.

What does this model leave out?

Mortgage interest tax deductions, rent control or lease-renewal uncertainty, the value of not having a landlord, moving costs, and any change in interest rates or home prices beyond a single steady assumption — all real factors this simplified comparison doesn't capture.

Highly sensitive to your assumptions. Small changes in the investment return or appreciation rate can flip the answer. Run this with your own honest numbers, not defaults, before treating the result as a recommendation.