Home / Engineering Economics / Annual Worth & EAC Calculator
Engineering Economics
Annual Worth & Equivalent Annual Cost (EAC) Calculator
In short: the equivalent annual cost (EAC), also called annual worth or the CAUE, is the uniform per-year cost of owning and operating an asset over its whole life. This calculator computes the EAC of a single asset from its initial cost, salvage, operating cost, life, and rate, breaks it into capital recovery and operating cost, converts a benefit into net annual worth, and compares alternatives with different lifespans to find the most economical.
The EAC formula
EAC = (Initial cost − Salvage) × (A/P, i, n) + Salvage × i + Annual operating cost, where the capital recovery factor (A/P) = i(1 + i)n ÷ [(1 + i)n − 1].
Equivalent annual cost, or EAC, answers a deceptively simple question: what does this asset really cost per year, once you account for the purchase price, the money you get back at the end, and the running costs along the way? It converts the whole financial life of an asset into a single uniform annual figure, which is far easier to compare and to budget for than a large upfront outlay followed by a stream of later costs.
Its most important use is comparing alternatives that last for different numbers of years, a situation where total cost and even net present value can mislead, and where a cost-per-year figure is the only fair basis for a decision. This calculator computes the equivalent annual cost of a single asset, breaks it into its components, converts a benefit into net annual worth when you supply one, and, in its comparison mode, ranks several alternatives of unequal life to find the most economical.
In Spanish and Portuguese engineering economy the method is known as the CAUE, the costo or custo anual uniforme equivalente.
The idea behind annual worth
Every asset involves money at different points in time: a large sum now to buy it, smaller sums each year to run it, and perhaps a recovery of value when it is sold or scrapped. Comparing assets by adding these up is unfair when they last for different periods, because the longer-lived asset racks up more total operating cost simply by serving longer, while also delivering more years of service.
The annual worth method sidesteps this by spreading every cash flow evenly across the years of the asset life, using the time value of money, to produce the uniform annual amount that is financially equivalent to the actual pattern of costs. Once each alternative is expressed as a cost per year, they can be compared directly, because a cost per year means the same thing whether the asset lasts three years or thirty.
This is the insight that makes annual worth the natural language of equipment and replacement decisions.
The method rests on a reasonable assumption: that when an asset wears out it is replaced by a similar one at a similar cost, so its annual cost continues into the indefinite future. That is what licenses the comparison of different lives, because you are comparing the ongoing yearly cost of providing a service, not the cost of a single finite episode. Where that assumption genuinely fails, a common study period and net present value are the alternative, but for the great majority of machinery, vehicle, and facility decisions the replacement assumption holds and annual worth is exactly the right tool.
The capital recovery factor
At the heart of the calculation sits the capital recovery factor, the multiplier that turns a lump sum today into a series of equal annual payments that repay it with interest over a set number of years. It is the same mathematics as the payment on a fully amortising loan: borrow the initial cost, repay it in equal yearly instalments over the asset life, and each instalment is the initial cost times the capital recovery factor.
The factor rises with the interest rate, because capital that costs more to use demands a larger annual charge, and it falls as the life lengthens, because the repayment is spread over more years. Multiplying the net amount you have invested by this factor gives the annual capital recovery cost, the yearly price of having tied up that capital, which is usually the largest component of the equivalent annual cost.
The calculator reports the exact factor it uses, so the arithmetic is transparent and reproducible.
How the EAC formula works
The equivalent annual cost combines three pieces. First is capital recovery on the amount invested net of what you get back: the initial cost minus the salvage value, multiplied by the capital recovery factor. Second is the interest on the salvage value, added because that recovered value stays locked in the asset until the end and so forgoes the return it could otherwise have earned. Third is the annual operating cost, the running expense that already occurs each year and needs no conversion.
Put together, the equivalent annual cost equals the initial cost minus salvage, times the capital recovery factor, plus salvage times the interest rate, plus the annual operating cost.
A worked example makes this concrete: a machine costing ten thousand with a salvage value of two thousand after five years, at an interest rate of ten percent, has a capital recovery factor of about 0.2638, so its capital recovery is eight thousand times 0.2638 plus two thousand times ten percent, which is about 2,310 per year; add an annual operating cost of, say, fifteen hundred and the equivalent annual cost is about 3,810 per year. The calculator lays out each of these components.
Comparing alternatives of different lives
The comparison mode is where annual worth earns its reputation. Suppose you must choose between two machines that do the same job. Machine A costs fifteen thousand, has a salvage value of three thousand, costs four thousand a year to run, and lasts three years. Machine B costs twenty-five thousand, has a salvage value of five thousand, costs three thousand a year to run, and lasts six years. You cannot simply compare their totals, because B operates for twice as long.
Converting each to an equivalent annual cost at ten percent, machine A comes to about 9,125 per year while machine B comes to about 8,092 per year, so machine B is the more economical choice despite its far higher purchase price, because its longer life and lower running cost spread the capital over more years and reduce the annual burden.
This is the kind of conclusion that raw totals and intuition get wrong and that annual worth gets right, and the calculator highlights the lowest-cost alternative automatically.
For the comparison to be valid the alternatives must provide the same service and carry similar risk. If one machine produces more output or better quality, that difference must be valued separately, because equivalent annual cost only compares the cost of delivering an equivalent benefit. Where the options also earn different revenues, the right comparison is their annual worth, which nets the annual benefit against the annual cost, rather than cost alone. The calculator supports this by letting you enter an annual benefit in single-asset mode to obtain the net annual worth and an accept-or-reject verdict.
Annual worth for accept-or-reject decisions
Beyond choosing among alternatives, annual worth can decide whether a single project is worthwhile at all. Convert every cash flow of the project into its uniform annual equivalent, costs as negatives and revenues as positives, and the result is the net annual worth.
A positive annual worth means the project earns more than the required return in each year of its life and therefore creates value, exactly the same conclusion a positive net present value would give, because annual worth is simply the net present value multiplied by the capital recovery factor.
The two measures always agree on the accept-or-reject decision for a given project, and annual worth is often preferred for presentation because a per-year figure is more intuitive than a lump-sum present value, especially to audiences who plan in annual budgets. When you enter an annual benefit in this calculator, it performs exactly this net annual worth calculation and tells you whether the project clears the bar.
Reading the results
In single-asset mode the headline is the equivalent annual cost, and the results grid separates the capital recovery, the interest on salvage, the annual operating cost, and the capital recovery factor used, so you can see how the annual figure is assembled. If you supplied an annual benefit, the grid adds the net annual worth and the verdict line tells you whether the project is worthwhile.
In comparison mode the headline names the lowest-cost alternative and its equivalent annual cost, the grid lists every alternative EAC with the winner highlighted, and the table breaks down each option initial cost, life, capital recovery, and operating cost side by side. The chart shows the equivalent annual cost of each alternative as a bar so the ranking is visible at a glance, or, in single mode, the split between capital recovery and operating cost.
Changing the discount rate updates everything at once, which matters because the ranking of alternatives with very different upfront costs can flip as the rate changes.
Annual worth in the wider toolkit
Annual worth is one of four measures that together give a rounded view of an investment, alongside net present value, the internal rate of return, and the payback period, and each answers a different question. Net present value states the total value a project creates in today money and is the theoretically correct criterion when alternatives share the same life. The internal rate of return expresses that value as an annual percentage to compare against a hurdle rate.
The payback period reports how quickly the outlay is recovered, a measure of liquidity and risk. Annual worth restates value or cost as a uniform amount per year, which is uniquely suited to comparing alternatives of different lives and to communicating a decision in the annual language of budgets.
The four are mathematically linked: annual worth is net present value multiplied by the capital recovery factor, so for a single project they always agree on accept or reject, and they differ only in what they emphasise and how they present the answer.
Because the companion calculators in this silo share the same discount-rate convention and cash-flow logic, you can move a single set of assumptions across all of them and read the decision from every angle without re-entering your numbers. A capital purchase might be screened first on payback, valued on net present value, expressed as a return with the internal rate of return, and finally compared against alternatives of different lives on equivalent annual cost.
Using annual worth as part of that set, rather than in isolation, is how it delivers the most: it is the right tool for unequal-life comparison and for annual-budget communication, and it sits comfortably beside the other three for everything else. In practice, the more angles from which a decision holds up, the more confident you can be in it, and the small effort of computing all four measures on one forecast is repaid many times over in the quality and defensibility of the conclusion you reach.
Annual worth is the member of that quartet built for the everyday engineering question of which asset, over its own natural life, costs the least to own and run each year.
Buy versus lease, repair versus replace
Two of the most common decisions annual worth settles are whether to buy or lease an asset and whether to repair or replace an ageing one. In a buy-versus-lease comparison, buying is expressed as an equivalent annual cost, folding the purchase, the expected resale value, and the running costs into a per-year figure, which is then compared directly against the annual lease payment plus any operating costs the lease leaves with you.
Because a lease is already an annual amount, converting the purchase to the same basis is the only step needed to compare them fairly, and the alternative with the lower annual cost is the more economical, before any tax or balance-sheet considerations that may also bear on the choice.
The repair-versus-replace decision works the same way: the equivalent annual cost of keeping and maintaining the existing asset over its remaining life is compared against the equivalent annual cost of a replacement over its economic life, and if the replacement annual cost is lower, replacing is justified.
In both cases the strength of annual worth is that it reduces options with very different cash-flow shapes, a lump-sum purchase versus a stream of lease payments, or a low-capital high-maintenance old asset versus a high-capital low-maintenance new one, to a single comparable number per year.
Enter each option in the comparison mode with its own costs and life, and the calculator ranks them, so a decision that would otherwise turn on hard-to-compare cash-flow patterns becomes a straightforward look at which annual cost is lowest.
Bear in mind that tax treatment, accounting classification, and cash-flow timing also shape a buy-versus-lease choice, and that the equivalent annual cost captures the economic side of the decision rather than the tax side; where those factors are material, treat the annual cost as the starting point of the analysis and layer the tax and financing effects on top before the final call.
Why the annual figure communicates so well
Part of the enduring popularity of annual worth is that a cost per year is the language managers and budgets already speak. Capital budgets, departmental plans, lease decisions, and service contracts are all framed annually, so an equivalent annual cost drops straight into the conversation without translation.
A present value of forty thousand is abstract to many stakeholders, but a cost of eight thousand a year is immediately meaningful: it can be compared against an annual budget line, against the annual cost of the current arrangement, or against the annual saving a project promises.
This communicative clarity is not a mathematical advantage over net present value, with which annual worth is perfectly consistent, but it is a genuine practical one, and it is why engineers preparing a recommendation for non-financial decision-makers so often lead with the annual figure. The calculator is built to produce exactly that number, with the component breakdown available for anyone who wants to see how it was assembled.
The annual framing also makes trade-offs vivid. When you can see that one machine costs nine thousand a year and another eight thousand, the roughly one-thousand-a-year difference is easy to weigh against any non-cost factors, such as reliability, supplier support, or capability, that might justify paying more. Presenting the decision this way keeps the financial comparison honest and transparent while leaving room for the qualitative judgment that every real decision also requires.
A worked replacement comparison
Return to the two-machine example to see the full reasoning. Machine A costs fifteen thousand, recovers three thousand at the end of its three-year life, and costs four thousand a year to operate. At ten percent its capital recovery factor over three years is about 0.4021, so its capital recovery is twelve thousand times 0.4021 plus three thousand times ten percent, roughly 5,125 a year, and adding the four thousand operating cost gives an equivalent annual cost near 9,125.
Machine B costs twenty-five thousand, recovers five thousand after six years, and costs three thousand a year to run. Its capital recovery factor over six years is about 0.2296, so its capital recovery is twenty thousand times 0.2296 plus five thousand times ten percent, roughly 5,092 a year, and adding the three thousand operating cost gives an equivalent annual cost near 8,092.
Machine B wins by about a thousand a year, even though it costs ten thousand more to buy, because its longer life spreads the capital thinly and its lower running cost compounds that advantage.
The lesson is that the upfront price, the figure that dominates intuition, is often the least reliable guide, and that a fair comparison must fold the purchase, the salvage, the operating cost, and above all the differing lives into one annual number. Notice too that if the interest rate rose sharply, machine B larger capital base would be penalised more heavily and the gap would narrow or even reverse, which is why testing the rate matters. The calculator performs this entire comparison from a few inputs and shows each machine equivalent annual cost side by side.
Economic life and the best time to replace
One of the most valuable uses of equivalent annual cost is finding an asset economic life, the number of years of ownership that produces the lowest annual cost. As an asset ages two opposing forces act on its EAC. Capital recovery falls the longer you keep the asset, because the purchase price is spread over more years, which pulls the annual cost down.
At the same time operating and maintenance costs tend to rise as the asset wears, and the salvage value falls, both of which push the annual cost up. The economic life is the year at which the total equivalent annual cost is at its minimum, the sweet spot where the declining capital charge and the rising running cost balance.
Keeping an asset past its economic life means its annual cost starts climbing again as maintenance dominates, which is the quantitative signal that it is time to replace. By computing the EAC for different assumed lives, you can locate that minimum and time a replacement rationally rather than by gut feel.
This is the backbone of replacement analysis, where the asset you already own, the defender, is compared against a new candidate, the challenger, each at its own economic life and its own lowest equivalent annual cost. If the challenger EAC is below the defender remaining EAC, replacement is justified. The comparison mode in this calculator supports exactly this reasoning: enter the defender and challenger as alternatives with their respective costs, salvage values, operating costs, and lives, and the tool identifies the option with the lower annual cost.
Perpetual service and capitalized cost
When a service is needed effectively forever, such as a road, a dam, or a permanent utility, the equivalent annual cost connects directly to the capitalized cost, the present sum that would fund the service in perpetuity. The relationship is simple and elegant: the capitalized cost equals the equivalent annual cost divided by the interest rate, because a perpetuity of a fixed annual amount has a present value of that amount divided by the rate.
This means annual worth analysis extends naturally to infinite-horizon projects that net present value handles awkwardly, since an ordinary present value calculation would need an infinite series. If you know the equivalent annual cost of providing a service, dividing by the rate tells you the endowment that would sustain it forever, and conversely multiplying a capitalized cost by the rate returns the annual cost.
This duality is why public-sector and infrastructure economics leans heavily on annual worth: it turns an intimidating perpetual commitment into a single, comparable annual figure.
Computing EAC in a spreadsheet
The capital recovery portion of the equivalent annual cost is exactly what a spreadsheet payment function computes. Supply the interest rate, the number of years as the term, and the net amount invested as the present value, and the payment function returns the annual capital recovery, the same figure the calculator reports.
To build the full EAC you then add the annual operating cost and, if you handle salvage separately rather than netting it into the present value, add back the interest on the salvage value. The capital recovery factor itself is the payment function applied to a present value of one. Knowing this lets you reproduce and audit the calculator result in a spreadsheet and integrate it into a larger model.
It also explains why annual worth feels so natural to anyone who has built a loan amortisation schedule: the annual capital charge on an asset is mathematically identical to the level payment on a loan of the same amount, rate, and term.
How the discount rate shapes the decision
The discount rate deserves careful attention in annual worth analysis because it enters through the capital recovery factor and therefore weighs heavily on the capital-intensive alternative. A higher rate raises the annual capital charge more for an option with a large upfront cost than for one with a small upfront cost, because there is more capital to recover, so raising the rate tends to favour the cheaper-to-buy alternative and lowering it favours the one that costs more upfront but less to run.
This means the ranking of alternatives can flip as the rate changes, and a decision that looks clear at one rate may reverse at another. A disciplined analysis therefore tests a range of rates rather than trusting a single figure, especially when the alternatives differ sharply in their initial cost, which is the usual case in equipment selection.
Because the calculator recomputes instantly when you change the rate, you can watch the equivalent annual costs and their ranking respond and judge how robust the choice really is.
Common mistakes to avoid
A few errors recur with annual worth. The first is comparing alternatives of different lives by their totals or their net present values without annualising, which unfairly penalises the longer-lived option; convert to equivalent annual cost instead. The second is forgetting that the method assumes replacement, and applying it where the need ends after a fixed period; there, use a common study period and net present value.
The third is mishandling salvage value, either ignoring it or subtracting it without the interest adjustment; enter it in the salvage field and let the calculator apply the standard treatment. The fourth is comparing alternatives that do not actually deliver the same service, so that a lower annual cost hides a lower benefit; value any difference in output separately.
And the fifth is treating the discount rate as fixed; because it drives the capital recovery factor, test a range of rates, particularly when the alternatives differ sharply in their upfront cost.
Five worked examples of annual worth
Example 1: annualizing an NPV
A project has an NPV of 1,372 over 5 years at 10%. The capital-recovery factor (A/P,10%,5) is 0.2638, so AW = 1,372 × 0.2638 = 362 a year. The project adds about 362 of value every year in equivalent terms.
Example 2: the annual cost of an asset
A machine costs 50,000, lasts 5 years, salvage 5,000, at 10%. AW of cost = 50,000 × 0.2638 − 5,000 × (A/F,10%,5 = 0.1638) = 13,190 − 819 = 12,371 a year — its equivalent uniform annual cost.
Example 3: comparing unequal-life assets
Machine A lasts 3 years, Machine B lasts 5. Annual worth compares them directly without a common-multiple horizon, because AW already expresses each as a per-year figure.
Example 4: adding annual operating costs
Take Example 2 and add 4,000 a year of operating cost. Total equivalent annual cost = 12,371 + 4,000 = 16,371 a year. AW cleanly combines one-time capital with recurring costs.
Example 5: the accept rule
A revenue project with AW of net cash flows = +362 (Example 1) is positive, so accept — exactly consistent with its positive NPV. AW and NPV always agree on accept/reject.
Three expert tips for annual worth
Use AW to compare unequal lives
Annual worth is the cleanest method when assets have different service lives — it puts each on a per-year basis, avoiding the least-common-multiple horizon that NPV needs.
Keep the capital-recovery factor consistent
AW hinges on (A/P,i,n). Use the same interest rate and life you used for the cash flows, and treat salvage with the sinking-fund factor (A/F,i,n).
Read the sign the same as NPV
A positive AW of net cash flows means accept; for cost-only comparisons, choose the lowest equivalent annual cost. The decision always matches what NPV would say.
Frequently asked questions
What is equivalent annual cost (EAC)?
Equivalent annual cost, EAC, is the uniform yearly amount that is financially equivalent to owning and operating an asset over its whole life. It rolls the upfront purchase, the salvage value at the end, and the running costs each year into a single figure expressed per year, so you can talk about the cost of an asset as one steady annual number rather than a mix of a big initial outlay and a stream of later costs.
It is calculated by converting the initial cost into an equivalent annual amount using the capital recovery factor, adjusting for any salvage value, and adding the annual operating cost. EAC is also called annual worth in its more general form, and in Spanish and Portuguese engineering economy it is known as the CAUE, the costo or custo anual uniforme equivalente.
Its great strength is that it lets you compare assets with different lifespans fairly.
Why is EAC used to compare assets with different lives?
Comparing a machine that lasts three years against one that lasts six on the basis of their total costs is misleading, because the longer-lived machine naturally incurs more total cost simply by operating for more years, yet it also serves you for longer. Net present value has the same problem when lives differ.
EAC solves this by expressing each alternative as a cost per year, which is directly comparable regardless of how many years each asset lasts, on the reasonable assumption that whatever you buy will be replaced by something similar when it wears out. The alternative with the lowest equivalent annual cost is the most economical, even if its total or its upfront cost is higher.
This is exactly why annual worth analysis is the standard method for equipment selection and replacement decisions in engineering economy, and the comparison mode in this calculator is built for it.
How is EAC calculated?
The core of the calculation is the capital recovery factor, which converts a present amount into a uniform annual amount over n years at interest rate i. Its formula is i times one plus i to the power n, divided by the quantity one plus i to the power n minus one.
You multiply the initial cost, less the salvage value, by this factor, then add the interest earned on the salvage value, and finally add the annual operating cost. In symbols, EAC equals the initial cost minus salvage, times the capital recovery factor, plus salvage times the interest rate, plus the annual operating cost.
The salvage terms account for the fact that you recover some value at the end but forgo interest on it in the meantime. This calculator shows the capital recovery component and the operating cost separately so you can see how the annual figure is built up.
What is the capital recovery factor?
The capital recovery factor, sometimes written A/P, is the multiplier that turns a lump sum today into a series of equal annual payments that repay it with interest over a set number of years, exactly like the payment on a fully amortising loan.
A higher interest rate raises the factor, because the money costs more to use, and a longer term lowers it, because the repayment is spread over more years. It is the mathematical heart of equivalent annual cost: multiplying the net initial investment by the capital recovery factor gives the annual capital recovery cost, the yearly charge for having tied up that capital.
The calculator reports the factor it used so you can verify the arithmetic or reproduce it in a spreadsheet, where the same value is returned by the payment function.
What is the difference between annual worth and EAC?
Annual worth and equivalent annual cost are the same idea applied to different situations. Equivalent annual cost focuses on costs and is used when you are choosing the cheapest way to provide a service, such as selecting a machine, where all the alternatives produce the same benefit and you simply want the lowest annual cost.
Annual worth is the more general term and can be positive or negative: it is the net annual equivalent of all a project cash flows, both costs and revenues, so a positive annual worth means the project earns more than the required return each year and should be accepted.
In this calculator, if you enter an annual revenue or benefit alongside the costs, the tool reports the net annual worth and an accept-or-reject verdict; if you leave the benefit blank, it reports the equivalent annual cost for a pure cost comparison.
How do I handle salvage value in EAC?
Salvage value is the amount you expect to recover by selling or scrapping the asset at the end of its useful life, and it reduces the equivalent annual cost because part of your initial outlay comes back to you.
In the standard formula the salvage value is handled in two pieces: the initial cost is reduced by the salvage before applying the capital recovery factor, and then the interest that could have been earned on the salvage amount is added back, because that value is locked up in the asset until the end.
The net effect is that a higher salvage value lowers the EAC, which is why assets that hold their resale value well can be cheaper to own on an annual basis even if they cost more to buy. Enter the expected salvage in the calculator, or zero if the asset will be worthless at the end.
Which alternative should I choose in a comparison?
When comparing alternatives that all provide the same service, choose the one with the lowest equivalent annual cost, provided the alternatives carry similar risk. The comparison mode in this calculator computes the EAC of each option you enter, even when they have different lifespans, different salvage values, and different operating costs, and highlights the one with the lowest annual cost as the most economical.
It is important that the alternatives are genuinely providing the same benefit; if they differ in output, quality, or capability, you must account for that separately, because EAC only compares the cost of delivering an equivalent service. Where the options also generate different revenues, switch to comparing their annual worth instead, so that both the costs and the benefits are captured in the per-year figure.
Does EAC assume the asset is replaced?
Yes, implicitly. Expressing a cost as an equivalent annual amount and comparing alternatives of different lives on that basis rests on the assumption that when an asset reaches the end of its life it will be replaced by a similar one at a similar cost, so the annual cost continues indefinitely.
This is what makes it fair to compare a three-year machine against a six-year one: you are comparing the ongoing annual cost of each service, not a one-off. If that assumption does not hold, for example because the need itself ends after a fixed period, you should instead compare the alternatives over a common study period using net present value, replacing shorter-lived assets as needed within that period.
For most equipment and infrastructure decisions, though, the replacement assumption is reasonable and EAC is the right tool.
When should I use EAC rather than NPV?
Use equivalent annual cost when you are comparing alternatives with different useful lives, because NPV is not directly comparable across different time spans, whereas a per-year cost is. Use it also when a per-year figure communicates the decision more clearly, as it often does for equipment, vehicles, and facilities where managers think in annual budgets.
Net present value remains the better tool when the alternatives share the same life and you want the total value created, when you are deciding whether to undertake a single project rather than choosing among service alternatives, and when cash flows are irregular in a way that does not reduce neatly to a level annual amount.
In practice EAC and NPV are consistent with each other for equal-life comparisons, and the companion NPV calculator in this silo uses the same discount rate so you can move between them easily.
Does this calculator store the numbers I enter?
No. The calculator runs entirely in your browser. The costs, rates, lives, and other values you enter are never sent to our servers, stored, or shared. You can use it freely for confidential figures. See our Privacy Policy for details.
Is the annual worth calculator free to use?
Yes. This calculator, like every tool on OpsCalculators, is free and needs no account or sign up. There is no paywall and no limit on how many calculations you can run, and you can export your results to CSV or save a PDF at no cost.
What discount rate should I use for annual worth?
Use the rate that reflects your required return, usually your cost of capital plus a margin for risk, the same rate you would use for a net present value analysis; in engineering economy this is often called the minimum acceptable rate of return, or in Brazilian practice the minimum attractive rate of return.
A higher rate increases the capital recovery factor and therefore the equivalent annual cost, because tying up capital is more expensive, so the rate materially affects the comparison. When alternatives have very different upfront costs, the choice can even flip as the rate changes, which is why it is wise to test a range of rates rather than trusting a single figure.
The calculator recomputes instantly when you change the rate, so you can see how sensitive the decision is.
Related engineering economics calculators
More tools in this silo. Return to the Engineering Economics hub for the full set.
Sources, disclaimer and editorial transparency
Method follows the standard treatment of annual worth and equivalent annual cost in engineering economy, including the texts by Blank and Tarquin, Newnan, and Park, and the capital recovery factor as defined in every engineering-economy curriculum. See our Editorial Policy for how we research and review each tool.
This calculator is for education and planning and does not constitute financial, tax, investment, or accounting advice. Confirm any figure that informs a real decision with a qualified professional. OpsCalculators is operated by MAFHH INTERNATIONAL LTD; see our Privacy Policy.