Guide
Should I buy or rent? What the maths actually says — and what it misses
Buying wins in some scenarios and renting wins in others. The answer depends on time horizon, deposit size, and what you assume about property growth.
Time horizon is the most important variable
Buying a home involves significant upfront costs — stamp duty, legal fees, survey — that renting does not. These costs only make sense if you stay long enough for equity growth and interest savings to outweigh them. For stays under three to four years in most markets, renting is frequently the better financial position even if the monthly mortgage is similar to rent.
Property growth assumptions drive the answer
Most buy-vs-rent models are sensitive to what you assume about house price growth. At 0% growth, buying is expensive and renting looks much better. At 5% annual growth, buying looks significantly better over a 10-year horizon. The honest answer is that no one knows what property prices will do — so any model should be run at multiple growth assumptions, not just one.
Renting has real financial advantages that are often ignored
Renters avoid maintenance costs, buildings insurance, and the risk of a large, illiquid asset. The deposit not spent on a property can be invested. These advantages are real and often underweighted in buy-vs-rent comparisons that treat renting as 'dead money.' Renting is a legitimate long-term financial choice — it is a different trade-off, not an inferior one.