The rent vs buy question is one of the most consequential financial decisions most people face, and the answer depends almost entirely on the assumptions behind it. House price growth, mortgage rates, rent increases, how long you stay, and what the deposit would earn if invested instead all feed into the comparison. Change any one of them significantly and the conclusion can reverse. This tool models both paths side by side from the same starting point, so the trade-off is visible at your specific numbers rather than as a generalisation.

The comparator runs a year-by-year simulation over your chosen period. The buying path accounts for the deposit, stamp duty, mortgage payments, and maintenance. The renting path assumes the deposit and stamp duty money is invested instead, and any monthly surplus (when buying costs more than renting) is also invested. At the end, it compares the equity in the property against the investment pot to show which path produces more net wealth, and when (if ever) buying overtakes renting. All figures are illustrative and depend on the assumptions you enter.

About this tool

How to use the rent vs buy comparator

The comparison is most informative when the inputs reflect your actual situation rather than round numbers. Use the mortgage rate from a current best-buy table or a decision-in-principle quote. Use your actual current rent. The property price should match the kind of property you would realistically buy, not an aspiration. The stamp duty calculator can confirm the duty figure for a specific price, and the house deposit planner can model the saving timeline for the deposit.

Why house price growth dominates the comparison

In most rent vs buy comparisons, the house price growth assumption has more impact on the outcome than the mortgage rate, the rent level, or the investment return. This is because a property is a leveraged asset: a 10% deposit means you control an asset worth ten times what you put in. If that asset grows by 3% per year, the growth is on the full property value, not just the deposit. On a £280,000 property with a £28,000 deposit, 3% annual growth adds approximately £8,400 to the property value in year one alone, which is a 30% return on the deposit in equity terms. A renter earning 5% on the same £28,000 adds £1,400.

This leverage effect is what makes buying look compelling over long periods. It is also what makes the comparison fragile: if house prices grow at 1% instead of 3%, the leveraged gain drops from £8,400 to £2,800, and the comparison shifts sharply toward renting. The sensitivity panel makes this visible by running the comparison at three different growth rates. If the result only favours buying at the higher end of the range, the decision is more of a bet on house prices than a straightforward financial calculation. The variable rate payment impact calculator can model how changes in the mortgage rate affect monthly costs, which is the other major variable for the buying path.

What the renting path actually models

The renting path in this tool is not simply “total rent paid.” It models the renter as someone who invests the money that would otherwise go into a deposit, stamp duty, and the monthly cost difference between buying and renting. The deposit and stamp duty are invested from day one at the assumed investment return. If the monthly buying cost (mortgage plus maintenance) exceeds the monthly rent, the renter invests the surplus each month as well. This means the renting path builds wealth through investment rather than property equity.

This is a more realistic model than the common framing of renting as “dead money.” Whether renting is dead money depends entirely on what the renter does with the surplus. If the surplus is spent, renting produces no wealth. If it is invested consistently, the investment pot can grow substantially over the comparison period. The tool assumes the renter invests the full surplus, which is the financially optimal renting strategy. In practice, many renters do not invest the surplus systematically, which shifts the comparison in favour of buying because mortgage payments function as forced saving. The comparison in this tool shows the theoretical best case for both paths.

The breakeven year and how long you need to stay

The breakeven year is the point at which the buyer’s equity exceeds the renter’s investment pot. Before this point, the renter has more net wealth. After it, the buyer has more. The breakeven typically falls between 5 and 12 years depending on the assumptions, with stamp duty, the deposit opportunity cost, and the early-years interest dominance being the main reasons it takes several years for buying to pull ahead.

The practical implication is that if you expect to move before the breakeven year, buying may not be the stronger financial choice even if it feels intuitively better. Transaction costs on sale (estate agent fees, solicitor fees, potential stamp duty on the next property) are not included in this tool but would push the breakeven out further. If the breakeven is year 8 and you expect to move in year 6, the gap between the two paths is worth checking: if it is small, the non-financial benefits of ownership (stability, the ability to modify the property, no landlord) may still make buying the preferred choice. If it is large, the financial cost of buying for a short period is worth understanding before committing.

What this tool does and does not include

The tool models the core financial mechanics of both paths: mortgage amortisation, property appreciation, deposit investment growth, rent escalation, stamp duty, and maintenance. It does not include transaction fees on sale (typically 1 to 3% of the sale price), mortgage arrangement fees (commonly £500 to £2,000), buildings insurance (required for ownership but not for renting), service charges on leasehold properties, capital gains tax on investment returns, or the cost of furnishing a purchased property. These omissions favour the buying path slightly because the excluded costs are predominantly on the buying side.

The tool also does not model the non-financial factors that often drive the decision. Ownership provides security of tenure, the freedom to modify the property, and a long-term base that renting typically cannot. Renting provides flexibility to move, no exposure to property market downturns, and no responsibility for major repairs. These factors are personal and cannot be reduced to a number, but the financial comparison in this tool provides the quantitative context within which those qualitative preferences sit. For a full picture of upfront purchase costs, the stamp duty calculator covers the three UK nations, and the house deposit planner models the deposit saving timeline.

Related tools

Frequently asked questions

Why does the tool sometimes show renting as better than buying?

Renting comes out ahead when the renter’s investment returns exceed the buyer’s equity growth over the comparison period. This typically happens when house price growth is low, the mortgage rate is high, or the comparison period is short. In the early years of a mortgage, most of the monthly payment goes to interest rather than principal, so equity builds slowly. Meanwhile, the renter’s deposit is fully invested from day one and compounds at the investment return rate. If the deposit earns 5% per year and the property only grows at 1%, the renter’s pot grows faster than the buyer’s equity for a significant number of years.

The monthly cost difference also matters. If buying costs £1,500 per month (mortgage plus maintenance) and renting costs £1,000, the renter invests the £500 monthly surplus. Over 10 years, that surplus alone compounds to a substantial amount. The tool captures this by modelling the cash flow difference month by month. This is why the comparison is sensitive to the rent level relative to the mortgage cost: if rent is close to or above the mortgage payment, the renter has no surplus to invest, and the buying path is more likely to win.

What house price growth rate should I use?

UK house prices have grown at an average of approximately 3 to 4% per year over the past 25 years in nominal terms, but this average masks significant regional variation and periods of decline. Some regions have seen sustained growth well above this average, while others have underperformed. The rate also varies by property type: flats in some urban areas have grown more slowly than detached houses in commuter towns. There is no reliable way to predict future house price growth, which is why the sensitivity panel is the most important part of this tool.

A pragmatic approach is to run the comparison at 0%, 2%, and 4% (which the sensitivity panel does automatically) and see whether the result changes direction. If buying wins at all three rates, the conclusion is reasonably robust regardless of what house prices actually do. If it only wins at 4% and loses at 0%, the outcome depends on a favourable property market. The 0% scenario is particularly informative because it strips out the speculative element entirely and shows whether buying works purely on the basis of forced saving through mortgage principal repayment.

Does the tool account for selling costs when the buyer eventually sells?

No. The tool shows the equity position at the end of the comparison period but does not deduct the costs of selling the property. Selling costs in England and Wales typically include estate agent fees (1 to 2% of the sale price), solicitor or conveyancer fees (£500 to £1,500), and an Energy Performance Certificate. On a property worth £350,000, these costs might total £5,000 to £9,000. Including them would reduce the buyer’s net wealth and push the breakeven year out slightly.

The tool also does not include the stamp duty the buyer would pay on a subsequent property if they move, which can be significant. The reason for excluding these costs is that the comparison is designed to show the wealth position at a single point in time, and some buyers will not sell at the end of the comparison period: they may remortgage, stay longer, or let the property. Including selling costs as a fixed deduction would distort the comparison for buyers who intend to hold the property long term. If you plan to sell at the end of the period, mentally deducting 2 to 3% of the property value from the buying result gives a more realistic net figure.

How does the first-time buyer stamp duty relief work?

Under the current 2025/26 rules for England and Wales, first-time buyers pay no stamp duty on the first £425,000 of a property priced up to £625,000. Between £425,001 and £625,000, the rate is 5%. If the property price exceeds £625,000, first-time buyer relief does not apply and standard rates are used instead. The tool applies this relief automatically when the first-time buyer toggle is selected, and switches to standard rates when it is not.

The stamp duty saved by first-time buyer relief can be significant. On a property priced at £280,000, a standard buyer would pay £1,500 in stamp duty (5% on the amount between £250,000 and £280,000), while a first-time buyer pays nothing. On a property at £425,000, the standard buyer pays £8,750 while the first-time buyer pays nothing. This difference affects the breakeven calculation because the stamp duty is part of the upfront cost that the renter’s deposit would otherwise earn investment returns on. The stamp duty calculator provides a detailed breakdown including rates for Scotland and Wales.

What investment return is realistic for the renting scenario?

The investment return in the renting scenario represents what the deposit and monthly surplus would earn if invested in a diversified portfolio. A globally diversified equity portfolio has historically returned approximately 7 to 8% per year in nominal terms over long periods, but with significant short-term volatility. A more conservative portfolio with a mix of bonds and equities might return 4 to 6%. A cash savings account currently offers 3 to 5% but this rate changes with the Bank of England base rate and is not guaranteed over a long comparison period.

The return should be net of investment management charges and, ideally, should assume the funds are held in a tax-efficient wrapper such as a stocks and shares ISA. If the deposit exceeds the annual ISA allowance (£20,000 for 2025/26), some of the growth will be subject to capital gains tax, which the tool does not deduct. For a conservative comparison, using a return of 4 to 5% accounts for charges and some tax drag without being unrealistically low. Running the tool at different return assumptions shows how sensitive the renting outcome is to this variable. The ISA vs loan cost comparison tool can help with the tax-efficiency question if you are deciding between investing and paying down debt.

This tool is for illustrative purposes only and does not constitute financial advice. Projections use constant annual rates for house price growth, rent increases, and investment returns, which do not reflect real-world variability. Stamp duty rates use 2025/26 England and Wales thresholds and are subject to change. The tool does not include transaction costs on sale (estate agent fees, solicitor fees), mortgage arrangement fees, buildings insurance, service charges, ground rent, capital gains tax on investments, or the cost of furnishing a property. Maintenance is estimated at 1% of the property value per year as a simplified assumption. First-time buyer stamp duty relief applies under current rules and may change. Mortgage rates, investment returns, and rent levels are illustrative and may not reflect what is available or payable in practice. This tool does not constitute a recommendation to buy or rent. Actual outcomes will depend on your individual circumstances.