Home / Engineering Economics / IRR & MIRR Calculator
Engineering Economics
IRR & MIRR Calculator (Internal Rate of Return)
In short: the internal rate of return (IRR) is the discount rate at which a project net present value is zero, so it is the annual return the project earns; accept the project if its IRR beats your hurdle rate. This calculator also reports the modified IRR (MIRR), which uses realistic finance and reinvestment rates, draws the NPV profile, and warns when the cash flow may have more than one IRR.
The IRR and MIRR formulas
IRR: the rate r where −Investment + Σ [ CFt ÷ (1 + r)t ] = 0. MIRR = (FV of inflows at reinvestment rate ÷ PV of outflows at finance rate)1/n − 1.
The internal rate of return, or IRR, is the percentage that answers a question every investor asks: what annual return does this project actually earn? It is defined as the discount rate at which the net present value of all the cash flows is exactly zero, which is another way of saying it is the rate the project earns on the money tied up in it, accounting fully for when each cash flow arrives.
Because it comes out as a single percentage, the IRR is easy to compare against a required return and easy to explain, which is why it sits alongside NPV as one of the two workhorses of engineering economics and capital budgeting.
This calculator computes the IRR, and also the modified internal rate of return, or MIRR, which repairs the best-known weaknesses of the plain IRR, together with the NPV at your hurdle rate so you can make the accept-or-reject decision on solid ground.
What the IRR really measures
Imagine plotting the net present value of a project against the discount rate you apply. At a rate of zero the NPV is simply the sum of the cash flows minus the initial outlay, usually positive for a worthwhile project. As you raise the rate, future cash flows are discounted more heavily and the NPV falls, eventually crossing zero and turning negative. The rate at which it crosses zero is the IRR.
That crossing point is meaningful because it is the exact break-even required return: if your own hurdle rate is below the IRR, the project has a positive NPV at your rate and adds value; if your hurdle is above the IRR, the NPV at your rate is negative and the project destroys value.
The NPV-profile chart in this calculator draws that curve for your cash flows and marks the IRR where it crosses the axis, which makes the concept concrete rather than abstract.
This is why the IRR is often described as an internal rate: it depends only on the project own cash flows and their timing, not on any external rate you supply. Two projects with identical cash flows have the same IRR regardless of who is evaluating them, whereas their NPVs differ according to each evaluator discount rate. That self-contained quality is part of the IRR appeal, but as we will see it is also the source of its limitations, because a rate defined purely by the internal cash flows carries a hidden assumption about what happens to the cash once it leaves the project.
How the IRR is found
There is no simple formula that solves for the IRR of a general cash flow, because the equation setting NPV to zero is a polynomial whose degree equals the number of periods, and such equations generally cannot be rearranged to isolate the rate. Instead the IRR is found numerically.
The calculator evaluates the NPV at many rates across a wide range, watches for the point where the NPV changes sign from positive to negative, and then homes in on that crossing with repeated halving of the interval until the NPV is essentially zero.
This bracket-and-bisect method is robust: it does not depend on a good initial guess the way some faster methods do, and it lets the tool find every crossing rather than just one, which matters for the multiple-IRR case discussed below. By hand, the traditional approach is linear interpolation between a rate that gives a small positive NPV and one that gives a small negative NPV, which gives a close approximation in a couple of steps.
The reinvestment assumption and why MIRR exists
The plain IRR harbours an assumption that trips up many users: it implicitly assumes that every interim cash flow the project produces is reinvested, from the moment it is received until the end of the project, at the IRR itself. For a project with a modest IRR near your cost of capital this is roughly reasonable, but for a project boasting a high IRR it is optimistic, because you are unlikely to find other investments that consistently earn that high rate for the leftover cash.
The consequence is that the IRR overstates the return you will actually realise, sometimes substantially. The modified internal rate of return fixes this by separating two rates. Positive cash flows are compounded forward to the end of the project at a reinvestment rate you choose, normally your realistic cost of capital or market return. Negative cash flows are discounted back to the present at a finance rate, normally your cost of borrowing.
The MIRR is then the single rate that grows the present value of the costs into the future value of the gains over the life of the project.
Because it uses assumptions you can defend rather than an optimistic one buried in the arithmetic, the MIRR usually comes out lower than the IRR for a high-return project and gives a figure much closer to the compound return you can really expect. It also has the practical virtue of always producing exactly one answer, which the plain IRR cannot guarantee. For both reasons many finance textbooks now teach MIRR as the preferred percentage measure, and this calculator reports it next to the IRR so the gap between the idealised and the realistic return is visible for your own project.
The multiple-IRR problem
A conventional project spends money once and then earns it back, so its cash flow changes sign a single time, from negative to positive, and it has exactly one IRR. But some projects change sign more than once. A mine may need a large cash outlay for restoration at the end of its life; a plant may require a major mid-life refit; a contract may involve advance payments followed by delivery costs.
Each additional change of sign can add another rate at which the NPV equals zero, so the project may have two or even more IRRs, none of which is a meaningful stand-alone return. This is not a flaw in the calculation but a property of the mathematics: the number of positive real roots of the NPV equation is bounded by the number of sign changes.
The calculator counts the sign changes in your cash flow and warns you whenever there is more than one, because that is your cue that the IRR figure should not be trusted on its own. In that case, lean on the MIRR, which is always unique, and on the NPV at your hurdle rate for the decision.
IRR versus NPV: when they agree and when they clash
For a single conventional project the IRR and NPV rules give the same verdict: a positive NPV at your hurdle rate corresponds to an IRR above that hurdle, and vice versa. The two can diverge in two situations. The first is ranking mutually exclusive projects of very different sizes. IRR is a percentage and ignores scale, so it may rank a small project with a spectacular percentage return above a large project with a lower percentage but a far greater total value created.
If you can only choose one and your goal is to maximise wealth, the larger NPV wins, even though its IRR is lower. The second is the timing of cash flows: projects that return cash early versus late can swap rankings between the two methods. The resolution in both cases is the same.
NPV measures value in absolute money terms and is the theoretically correct criterion when the two conflict, so compute both, use IRR and MIRR for communication and screening, and let NPV settle any disagreement about which project to choose.
Reading the results and choosing your rates
The calculator headline is the IRR itself, and the grid reports the MIRR, the NPV at your hurdle rate, and the count of sign changes. The decision line turns the IRR into a plain accept or reject against your hurdle, unless the sign-change count warns of a possible multiple IRR, in which case it tells you to rely on the MIRR and NPV instead. To use the MIRR you supply two rates.
The reinvestment rate should reflect what you can realistically earn on cash the project pays out, which for most organisations is the cost of capital rather than the flattering project IRR. The finance rate should reflect the cost of the money that funds any negative cash flows, usually your borrowing rate. Using your cost of capital for both is a common, defensible simplification.
The hurdle rate, sometimes called the minimum acceptable rate of return, is the return you require given the project risk, and it is the benchmark the IRR must beat. Changing any of these updates the result instantly, so you can test how sensitive the decision is to the assumptions.
A worked example
Take a project costing ten thousand that returns six thousand, then minus four thousand as a mid-project cost, then eight thousand, three thousand, and seven thousand over five years. Because the cash flow changes sign more than once, the plain IRR is suspect, and the calculator flags it.
Computing the MIRR with a finance rate of ten percent and a reinvestment rate of twelve percent, the positive cash flows compound forward to about twenty-nine thousand eight hundred, the negative flows discount back to a present cost of about thirteen thousand three hundred, and the MIRR that links them over five years is about seventeen and a half percent. That single, well-behaved figure is far more useful here than any of the possible plain IRRs, and comparing it against a hurdle rate gives a clean decision.
For a simpler conventional project, such as ten thousand returning three, four, five, four, and three thousand over five years, the IRR is a clean twenty-five point seven percent, comfortably above a ten percent hurdle, and the MIRR moderates that to a more realistic figure once reinvestment is accounted for.
IRR in a spreadsheet: IRR, XIRR and MIRR
It helps to know how these figures are produced in the tools you already use. A spreadsheet IRR function takes a range of cash flows, with the initial outlay entered as a negative value in the first cell and the subsequent flows following, and returns the rate that zeroes their net present value; because the search is iterative, some implementations let you supply a starting guess, which matters only for awkward cash flows where the default guess fails to converge.
When cash flows fall on irregular calendar dates rather than neat annual intervals, the dated variant, often called XIRR, discounts each flow by the actual number of days elapsed and is the correct choice for real transaction histories. The MIRR function takes the same cash-flow range plus two extra arguments, the finance rate and the reinvestment rate, and returns the modified rate directly.
Knowing these functions lets you reproduce and audit the calculator output, and it explains why a spreadsheet occasionally returns an error or a surprising value: it has found one root of a multi-root cash flow, exactly the situation this tool flags for you.
The calculator here uses the same definitions as those functions, so the numbers reconcile, but it adds what a bare spreadsheet cell does not show: the NPV profile that makes the crossing point visible, the count of sign changes that warns of multiple roots, and the MIRR alongside the IRR so the realistic and idealised returns sit side by side. That transparency is the point, because a single percentage with no context is easy to misread.
Ranking projects and the reinvestment debate in practice
In day-to-day capital budgeting the IRR is used most often as a screen and a communication device. A project whose IRR clears the hurdle rate with room to spare is easy to defend to a board that thinks in percentages, and the gap between the IRR and the hurdle is a quick read on how much cushion the decision has. The trouble starts when the IRR is used to rank and choose among competing projects.
Because it is a rate, it is blind to scale, and it embeds the optimistic reinvestment assumption discussed earlier, so it can systematically favour small, fast-return projects over larger ones that build more value.
Seasoned analysts guard against this by pairing the IRR with NPV for the final choice and by reporting the MIRR whenever reinvestment is likely to happen well below the IRR, which is almost always the case for high-return projects.
The reinvestment debate is not merely academic. Two projects can show the same IRR yet deliver very different realised returns if one throws off most of its cash early, when reinvestment opportunities matter more, and the other late. MIRR exposes that difference by forcing an explicit reinvestment rate, which is why it often reorders a ranking that the plain IRR gets wrong. The practical habit worth building is to treat the IRR as the headline that opens the conversation and the MIRR and NPV as the figures that settle it.
How robust is the IRR? Sensitivity in mind
An IRR is computed from a cash-flow forecast, and forecasts are uncertain, so it is worth asking how much the figure would move if the inputs were wrong. The IRR is most sensitive to the size and timing of the early cash flows and to the initial outlay, and much less sensitive to distant flows, which are heavily discounted in the underlying NPV.
A useful discipline is to recompute the IRR under a pessimistic version of the forecast and see whether it still clears the hurdle rate; if it does, the decision is robust, and if a mild haircut to the early cash flows pushes the IRR below the hurdle, the apparent margin is fragile.
The break-even nature of the IRR helps here, because the distance between the IRR and your hurdle rate is itself a margin of safety: a project with an IRR of twenty-five percent against a ten percent hurdle can absorb a great deal of forecast error before it stops adding value, whereas one at eleven percent against the same hurdle cannot.
Because the calculator recomputes instantly when you change the cash flows or the rates, it is well suited to this kind of what-if testing. Vary the inputs across the plausible range rather than trusting a single point estimate, and you convert a lone percentage into a genuine feel for the risk in the decision.
IRR beyond capital budgeting
Although it is taught as a capital-budgeting tool, the internal rate of return appears throughout finance under different names, because it is simply the rate that equates a stream of cash flows to a price. The yield to maturity of a bond is an IRR: it is the single rate that makes the present value of the bond coupons and redemption equal to its market price.
The money-weighted rate of return on an investment portfolio is an IRR that accounts for the timing and size of deposits and withdrawals, in contrast to the time-weighted return that strips them out. The effective interest rate on a loan, once fees and the repayment schedule are included, is an IRR.
Recognising this shared structure means the same tool and the same cautions apply widely: whenever you can lay out a dated series of cash flows and want the single rate that values them, the IRR is the answer, and the same multiple-root and reinvestment caveats travel with it. That generality is why the internal rate of return, for all its quirks, remains one of the most useful numbers in finance.
IRR, MIRR and the payback period together
The IRR and MIRR answer the question of what rate a project earns, but two projects with the same IRR can differ sharply in how quickly they return the initial outlay, and that speed matters for liquidity and risk. The payback period, and its discounted cousin, complement the rate measures by telling you when the money comes back rather than how fast it grows.
A project with a high IRR but a long payback ties up capital and exposes you to more forecast risk in the later years, whereas one with a slightly lower IRR but a quick payback frees cash sooner and is more resilient if the distant cash flows disappoint. Reading the IRR alongside the payback gives a fuller picture than either alone: the rate tells you whether the project clears your return threshold, and the payback tells you how much of your money is at risk for how long.
This is why the engineering-economics toolkit treats these as a family rather than as rivals, and why a disciplined appraisal reports the IRR, the MIRR, the NPV, and the payback together before a decision is made.
In this silo the companion payback and NPV calculators use the same cash-flow conventions as this one, so you can carry a single forecast across all of them and build a complete appraisal without re-entering your numbers. That consistency is deliberate: the tools are designed to be used as a set, each covering a facet of the same decision.
In a full appraisal you would typically compute the NPV to confirm the project creates value at your required return, read the IRR and MIRR to express that value as a return you can compare and communicate, and check the payback to understand the liquidity and risk profile, before weighing the strategic and qualitative factors that no calculator can capture.
Used together in this way, the numeric tools sharpen the decision without pretending to make it for you, and they keep the reasoning transparent enough to defend to anyone who asks how the conclusion was reached.
Assumptions and limitations of the IRR
The IRR is powerful but it rests on assumptions that define where it can mislead. The best known is the reinvestment assumption already discussed: the plain IRR treats every interim cash flow as if it were reinvested at the IRR itself, which overstates the realised return of high-rate projects and is precisely what MIRR corrects.
A second limitation is non-uniqueness: when cash flows change sign more than once the IRR may not be a single number, and no amount of care in interpretation rescues a figure that is genuinely ambiguous. A third is scale-blindness: because the IRR is a ratio it says nothing about the absolute value created, so it cannot, on its own, choose between a small project and a large one.
A fourth is that the IRR assumes a single rate applies across the whole life of the project, whereas real required returns can shift as risk resolves. And a fifth, shared with every discounted method, is that the IRR is only as good as the cash-flow forecast feeding it.
None of these undermines the IRR; they simply mark the boundaries of its proper use. Within those boundaries, for a conventional project screened against a hurdle rate, the IRR is an excellent, intuitive measure. Outside them, when projects are ranked, cash flows change sign, or reinvestment realistically happens below the IRR, the MIRR and the NPV are the figures to trust, and this calculator deliberately puts all three in front of you so the limitations of any one are covered by the others.
A practical checklist for using IRR and MIRR
Before you act on an IRR, run through a short checklist. First, look at the sign-change count: if it is one, the IRR is unique and safe to use; if it is more than one, treat the IRR with suspicion and lean on the MIRR and the NPV. Second, compare the IRR against a hurdle rate you have chosen deliberately, reflecting your cost of capital and the project risk, not a number pulled from the air.
Third, set the MIRR reinvestment rate to something you can actually earn on interim cash, usually the cost of capital, and the finance rate to your real borrowing cost, rather than leaving the flattering default of the IRR embedded. Fourth, if you are choosing between projects, compute the NPV of each and let it, not the IRR, drive the ranking when the two disagree.
Fifth, stress-test the decision by varying the early cash flows and the rates and watching whether the verdict holds.
Worked through this way, the IRR stops being a single seductive percentage and becomes one well-understood input among several. The calculator supports each step: it shows the sign-change count, lets you set the hurdle, finance, and reinvestment rates independently, reports the NPV at your hurdle alongside the IRR and MIRR, and recomputes instantly so you can probe how robust the answer is. That is the difference between using the IRR well and being misled by it.
Common mistakes to avoid
The most frequent error is trusting a single IRR when the cash flow changes sign more than once; always check the sign-change warning and switch to MIRR and NPV when it appears. The second is comparing the IRR of projects of very different sizes and picking the higher percentage, which can leave real value on the table; use NPV for that choice.
The third is forgetting that the plain IRR assumes reinvestment at the IRR, and therefore overstates the realised return of high-IRR projects; MIRR with a realistic reinvestment rate corrects this. The fourth is mismatching the rate and the period, for instance mixing an annual rate with monthly cash flows; keep the time unit consistent.
And the fifth is treating any of these figures as certainties rather than the outputs of a forecast; test a range of assumptions, because the cash-flow estimate is almost always the largest source of uncertainty in the whole analysis.
Five worked examples of the internal rate of return
Example 1: the IRR of a simple project
Invest 10,000; receive 3,000 a year for 5 years. The IRR is the rate where NPV = 0 — here about 15.2%. At 15.2% the discounted inflows exactly equal the 10,000 outlay.
Example 2: comparing IRR to the hurdle rate
If the required return is 10%, an IRR of 15.2% clears it — accept. If the hurdle were 18%, the same project’s IRR falls short, so reject. IRR is judged against the cost of capital.
Example 3: why IRR and NPV can disagree
For mutually exclusive projects of different size, the one with the higher IRR may have the lower NPV. When they conflict, follow NPV — it measures value added in dollars, not a percentage.
Example 4: interpolating between two rates
If NPV is +300 at 14% and −200 at 16%, IRR ≈ 14% + 300/(300+200) × 2% = 15.2%. Linear interpolation between a positive and a negative NPV gives a close estimate by hand.
Example 5: multiple sign changes
A project with cash flows −10,000, +25,000, −16,000 changes sign twice and can have two IRRs. Here IRR is not reliable; use NPV or the modified IRR (MIRR) instead.
Three expert tips for using IRR well
Always pair IRR with NPV
IRR is intuitive as a percentage but blind to scale and to reinvestment assumptions. For accept/reject and especially for ranking, let NPV be the tiebreaker.
Beware the reinvestment assumption
IRR implicitly assumes interim cash flows are reinvested at the IRR itself, which is often unrealistic for a high IRR. MIRR reinvests at the cost of capital and gives a more honest figure.
Check for non-conventional cash flows
More than one sign change in the cash-flow stream can produce multiple or no IRR. Scan the signs first; if they flip more than once, switch to NPV or MIRR.
Frequently asked questions
What is the internal rate of return (IRR)?
The internal rate of return is the discount rate at which the net present value of a project cash flows equals zero. In plain terms, it is the annual percentage return the project itself earns on the money invested in it, taking full account of the timing of every cash flow.
You compare the IRR against your required return, often called the hurdle rate or minimum acceptable rate of return: if the IRR is higher, the project earns more than you require and is worth doing; if it is lower, it falls short.
The IRR is popular because a single percentage is intuitive and easy to communicate to people who do not want to read a discounted cash-flow schedule, and because it lets you rank opportunities against a familiar benchmark such as the cost of capital or a target return.
How is the IRR calculated?
The IRR is the rate r that makes the sum of every cash flow divided by one plus r raised to its year, minus the initial investment, come out to exactly zero.
There is no closed-form algebraic solution for most cash flows, so it is found by iteration: a computer tries different rates, sees whether the resulting NPV is positive or negative, and narrows in until the NPV is essentially zero.
This calculator does exactly that, scanning across a wide range of rates and then converging precisely on the crossing point, which is why it can also warn you when more than one rate makes the NPV zero. By hand you would interpolate between two rates, one giving a small positive NPV and one a small negative NPV, but the iterative method the tool uses is both faster and exact.
What is MIRR and why is it better than IRR?
The modified internal rate of return, or MIRR, corrects two weaknesses of the ordinary IRR. First, the plain IRR implicitly assumes that every interim cash flow the project throws off is reinvested at the IRR itself, which for a high-return project is unrealistically optimistic.
MIRR instead lets you specify a realistic reinvestment rate, usually your cost of capital, at which positive cash flows are compounded forward, and a separate finance rate at which negative cash flows are discounted back. Second, the plain IRR can produce several answers when cash flows change sign more than once, whereas MIRR always gives a single, unambiguous figure.
Because it uses more realistic assumptions and behaves predictably, many finance textbooks recommend MIRR over IRR, and this calculator reports both so you can see the difference for your own numbers.
What is the difference between IRR and NPV?
IRR and NPV are two views of the same discounted cash flows. NPV gives a money amount, the value a project creates over and above a discount rate you choose, and its rule is to accept any project with a positive NPV. IRR gives a percentage, the rate at which the NPV would be zero, and its rule is to accept any project whose IRR exceeds your hurdle rate. For a single, conventional project they almost always agree.
They can disagree when ranking mutually exclusive projects of different sizes, because IRR ignores scale and may favour a small high-percentage project over a large one that creates far more total value, and when cash flows change sign repeatedly, because IRR can then be non-unique.
Finance theory treats NPV as the more reliable rule in a conflict, which is why the sensible practice is to compute both and let NPV decide when they clash.
What is the multiple-IRR problem?
A conventional project has one initial outflow followed by inflows, so its cash flow changes sign once and it has exactly one IRR. When a project has more than one change of sign, for example an outlay, then inflows, then a large negative cash flow for a closure cost or a mid-life overhaul, the mathematics can produce more than one rate at which the NPV is zero.
Each is a valid root of the equation, but none is a meaningful single return, and picking one can mislead. This calculator counts the sign changes in your cash flow and warns you when there is more than one, because that is the signal that the IRR may not be unique.
In that situation the right course is to rely on the MIRR, which always gives one figure, and on the NPV at your hurdle rate for the accept-or-reject decision.
What reinvestment and finance rates should I use for MIRR?
The reinvestment rate is the return you can realistically earn on the positive cash flows the project generates once you receive them, and for most companies the sensible choice is the cost of capital or a conservative market return, not the project IRR.
The finance rate is the cost of the money used to fund the negative cash flows, typically your borrowing rate or cost of capital. Using the cost of capital for both is a common and defensible simplification.
The key point is that MIRR asks you to be explicit about these assumptions rather than hiding an optimistic reinvestment assumption inside the IRR, which is precisely why it gives a more honest picture of the return you can actually expect to realise from the project over its life.
When should I use IRR rather than NPV?
IRR is most useful when you want a quick, communicable measure of a single project profitability to compare against a hurdle rate, and when the people you report to think naturally in percentages. It is ideal for screening: if a project IRR is comfortably above your required return, it clears the first hurdle.
It is also handy for expressing the margin of safety in a decision, since the gap between the IRR and the hurdle rate shows how far your assumptions could be wrong before the project stops adding value. For choosing between competing projects, especially of different sizes or with irregular cash flows, NPV is the safer guide, and MIRR is the better percentage measure.
In practice the three are complementary, and this calculator gives you IRR, MIRR, and the NPV at your hurdle rate together.
Can IRR handle uneven or negative interim cash flows?
Yes. The IRR is defined for any pattern of cash flows, and this calculator accepts a different amount for each year, including negative values for years when the project consumes cash. The only caution is that negative interim cash flows create additional sign changes, and each sign change raises the possibility of more than one IRR.
The tool handles this by scanning the whole plausible range of rates for every crossing point, reporting the primary IRR, and warning you when multiple solutions exist.
When they do, the MIRR, which the calculator computes from your finance and reinvestment rates, is the dependable single-figure measure, because it collapses all the interim flows into one present value of costs and one future value of gains before taking the rate.
What does it mean if a project has no IRR?
Some cash-flow patterns have no real internal rate of return at all, meaning there is no discount rate that makes the NPV exactly zero. This can happen when all the cash flows have the same sign, or with certain unusual mixes of positive and negative flows. It does not necessarily mean the project is good or bad; it simply means the IRR is not a usable statistic for it. When the calculator reports that no real IRR exists, use the NPV at your hurdle rate to judge whether the project adds value, and the MIRR, which can often still be computed, to express a return. This is another reason not to rely on IRR alone: NPV always gives a clear answer, whereas IRR occasionally cannot.
Is the IRR the same as the annual return I will actually earn?
Not exactly, and this is the subtle point MIRR addresses. The IRR is the return the project earns only if every interim cash flow can itself be reinvested at that same IRR until the end of the project.
If your actual reinvestment opportunities earn less than the IRR, which is usually the case for a high-IRR project, the true compound return you realise will be lower than the stated IRR. The MIRR, by using a realistic reinvestment rate, gives a figure much closer to the return you will actually earn.
So treat the IRR as the return internal to the project cash flows under an idealised assumption, and the MIRR as the more realistic expected return once you account for what you can really do with the money along the way.
Does this calculator store the numbers I enter?
No. The calculator runs entirely in your browser. The cash flows, rates, 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 IRR and MIRR 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.
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 the internal rate of return and modified internal rate of return in engineering economy and corporate finance, including the texts by Blank and Tarquin, Newnan, and Park, the CFA Institute curriculum, and the definition used by the Excel IRR and MIRR functions. 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.