Buying a home cheaper than renting

Buying a home is more cost-effective than renting in nearly two-thirds of Britain's major cities, research shows, with Glasgow home owners particularly faring well.

Property website Zoopla compared the average monthly rents being asked for a two-bedroom home across 50 cities with the cost of paying a mortgage on a similar-sized property with a 10 per cent deposit - the size of deposit often put down by first-time buyers.




It found that in 60 per cent of cities, buying a home was more cost-effective than renting one. The proportion has increased since April, when buying was more cost-effective than renting in 48 per cent of cities.

Among the cities standing out, mortgage payers in Glasgow may find themselves parting with an average of £450 per month, while renters there fork out an average of £596 - a difference of £146.Owning a home in Birmingham and Bradford rather than renting one was also found to be particularly cost-effective.

But in southern England, where house prices can be particularly high, renting often works out cheaper. London was found to be the city where renting was particularly likely to beat buying, in terms of the monthly costs, followed by Cambridge and Bournemouth.

In London, renting can work out £1,118 cheaper per month than having a mortgage, while in Cambridge the cost difference per month can work out at £549.