Where Buying Pays Off Sooner — and Where Today’s Prices Make It Harder

Key findings

• Buying still beats renting nationally under current market conditions — just not right away. A buyer purchasing the typical U.S. home comes out ahead after about 5.9  years with 5% down and 6.0 years with 20% down. Among the 50 largest metros, Columbus, Memphis and Buffalo are the fastest places to get there, with buy-versus-rent breakeven arriving in roughly 3.5 to 4.2  years, depending on down payment.
• At the other end of the spectrum, San Francisco, San Jose and New Orleans are the clearest examples of markets where today’s prices and rents leave renting ahead even over a full 30-year horizon.
• Putting more money down usually improves the long-run financial result. But it does not always get buyers to break even faster.

For years, the rent-versus-buy debate has bounced between two extremes. One camp treats buying as the obvious smart move. The other treats homeownership as a financial mistake almost by default.

Neither view is very helpful.

The real question is simpler: Under today’s market conditions, where does buying leave a household better off than renting, and how long does it take to get there?

The latest Zillow estimates point to a familiar but important answer. Nationally, buying still works — mostly for households with some staying power. The typical U.S. home value for single family homes is about $368,720, typical rent is about $1,951 a month, and buy-versus-rent breakeven comes in at about 5.9 years with 5% down and 6.0 years with 20% down even at slightly above 6% 30-year fixed rate mortgage.

By the end of 30 years, the homeowner comes out ahead while the renter does not. With 20% down, the homeowner finishes with about $735,000 in net housing wealth — roughly $2.01 million from home equity and the savings from the months when owning costs less than renting, against about $1.28 million in total ownership costs. The renter gains about $313,000 from investing the cash not used for a down payment and closing costs, plus whatever is saved in the months when renting is cheaper, but still pays about $1.47 million in rent and renter’s insurance over the same period. That leaves the renter’s net position at about -$1.15 million. With 5% down, the pattern is similar: homeowner wealth ends around $553,000, while the renter’s net position is roughly -$1.32million after 30 years.

That is the first bad rule of thumb to drop: a higher monthly cost at the start does not automatically mean buying is the worse financial choice.

Renting often does look better at the beginning. Buyers face a slew of up-front costs in the mortgage payment, property taxes, insurance, maintenance, a down payment, closing costs and eventually selling costs. Renters pay rent and renter’s insurance, but they also keep the cash they did not sink into the purchase.

That part matters.

Renting does not just mean avoiding a mortgage. It also means keeping the would-be down payment and closing costs available to invest somewhere else. That cash is a real advantage for renters. For buyers, it is the opportunity cost of tying money up in the home.

That helps explain why the usual advice to “put down as much as you can” misses part of the story.

A smaller down payment preserves more liquid cash. But it also means a larger loan, more interest paid over time and, below 20%, often mortgage insurance. So the question is not whether “more invested cash is always better.” The question is whether the return on the cash kept out of the home is high enough to make up for the extra borrowing costs that come with putting less down.

Sometimes it is. Sometimes it isn’t.

That is why the down-payment decision is best understood as a tradeoff between liquidity now and borrowing costs later.

Why 5% down breaks even faster in some markets — and 20% down does in others

One pattern in the rent-versus-buy numbers is easy to miss if you only look at the long run: 20% down produces the strongest long-run homeowner wealth in every market, but it is not always the fastest way to get to breakeven.

The reason is pretty straightforward. A lower down payment makes it easier to get in the door because the upfront cash requirement is smaller. That can help buyers catch up to renters sooner. But it also raises the ongoing cost of owning through a larger mortgage balance, more interest and, in many cases, PMI. A larger down payment flips that tradeoff around: it raises the hurdle at the start, but lowers the cost of carrying the home month after month.

The split across markets is not coming from different metro-level rent-growth assumptions in this version of the analysis. Rent is projected forward using the same rent-growth series across markets. What changes from one metro to the next is mainly the relationship between today’s rent and today’s cost of owning, along with the market-specific path for home value appreciation. In places where rents are already high relative to home prices and home values are expected to keep appreciating, a smaller down payment can sometimes pull breakeven forward. 

That is why Columbus, the fastest-breakeven market under current conditions, behaves the way it does. With 5% down, buying overtakes renting in about 3.5 years. With 20% down, it takes about 4.1 years. In Columbus, lowering the upfront hurdle helps the buyer get ahead faster.

But faster is not the same thing as better at the finish line. By the 30-year mark, 20% down still delivers the strongest homeowner wealth result in Columbus.

Chicago shows the other version of the story. There, 20% down is both slightly faster to breakeven and stronger in the long run than 5% down. In Chicago, the savings from borrowing less matter more than the benefit of keeping extra cash free at the start.

That helps explain the broader map. In places where rents are already high relative to home prices and home values are expected to keep appreciating, a smaller down payment can sometimes pull breakeven forward. In places where owning is still expensive relative to renting, or appreciation is less supportive, the lower monthly cost of a 20%-down loan tends to matter more.

So the better way to frame the down-payment question is not “is a low down payment bad?” It is: what balance of upfront liquidity and ongoing borrowing cost makes the most sense in this market?

Where buying pays off fastest

If the goal is to find the places where buying pays off fastest at today’s prices and rents, the answer is not the usual list of high-cost coastal markets.

Across the 50 largest metro areas, the fastest breakeven markets are:

Columbus, Memphis, Buffalo, Indianapolis and Cincinnati. 

Columbus is the fastest, reaching breakeven in about 3.5 years with 5% down and 4.1 years with 20% down. Memphis and Buffalo are close behind, both in roughly the 3.7- to 4.2-year range. Indianapolis and Cincinnati follow, with Louisville just behind them.

Where today’s prices make buying a longer game

Not every market fits that profile.

If the question changes from “where do buyers catch up fastest?” to “where does buying create the biggest long-run wealth edge?” the list shifts somewhat. Salt Lake City and Las Vegas stand out most, with Phoenix also near the top.

That pattern makes sense. The strongest markets for buying tend to combine three things: rents that are not especially cheap compared with owning, home values that still have room to grow, and carrying costs that do not overwhelm the ownership case.

San Francisco, San Jose and New Orleans are the clearest cases where, under today’s typical home values and asking rents, buying does not overtake renting within the full 30-year horizon.

That does not mean owning in those places is always a mistake. It means that at today’s prices, the financial payoff to buying is weak relative to renting. Homeownership costs are high enough, compared with local rents, that the purchase price is hard to earn back through appreciation and avoided rent over the time horizon used here.

Under current conditions, with 20% down, the gap still favors renting after 30 years by about:

• $583,000 in San Francisco
• $1.89million in San Jose
• $3.39 million in New Orleans

There is also a middle group of metros where buying eventually does pull ahead, but only after a long wait. The slowest finite breakevens are San Diego, Seattle, Austin, Los Angeles and Portland. In those markets, buying can still win under current conditions — but only after roughly 17 to 25 years.

That is another broad claim worth retiring: buying is not automatically a bad deal in expensive markets, but it often becomes a long-horizon decision.

Why rising rents still matter

One reason buying can still make sense in many places is that housing is not just an investment story. It is also a story about the cost of shelter.

When rents and home values rise quickly, homeowners benefit twice. They own an asset that can appreciate, and they are partly insulated from future rent increases. Renters do not get the appreciation and remain exposed to the next lease reset.

That does not mean rents and home values never fall. They do. But national rents are sticky downward, and broad national declines in the Zillow Home Value Index have been far less common than many people assume.

That is why the strongest anti-buying arguments tend to overreach. Buying is not a guaranteed win. But renting is not a permanent free option either. In markets where rents keep climbing, home values keep appreciating and households stay put long enough, ownership still carries a meaningful financial advantage.

Two assumptions worth keeping in mind

This comparison leaves out the federal tax treatment of homeownership, which generally favors buyers. Homeowners may be able to deduct mortgage interest and, up to the cap, state and local property taxes if they itemize. They can also often exclude a substantial share of capital gains when they sell a primary residence. None of those benefits show up on the renter’s side. Including them would make buying look somewhat better than it does here, though the effect would vary a lot from one household to another.

The assumed return on the renter’s invested cash matters too — a lot. The higher that return, the stronger the case for renting. Someone who invests the would-be down payment and leaves it alone for decades will end up in a very different place than someone who lets that money sit in cash, or spends it. So these breakeven numbers should be read as a disciplined comparison, not a universal answer for every household.

The rent-versus-buy math does not say “buy no matter what.”

Nationally, buying still works for households that expect to stay put for around six years or longer.

In relatively more affordable markets, where home values are still appreciating and rents are not cheap relative to ownership, buying pays off much sooner.

And in a small set of markets — especially San Francisco, San Jose and New Orleans — today’s prices make renting the stronger financial choice all the way through the 30-year horizon.

The bigger point is not that owning is always smart or always dumb. It is that the answer changes with the market, the mortgage rate, the down payment, the expected path of rents and home values, the return earned on cash kept outside the home, and, above all, how long a household expects to stay.

The post Where Buying Pays Off Sooner — and Where Today’s Prices Make It Harder appeared first on Zillow Research.