It really depends. On your jurisdiction. On your market. In my country, renting carries a strong risk of instability. As our rental laws were written in the 6

It really depends. On your jurisdiction. On your market. In my country, renting carries a strong risk of instability. As our rental laws were written in the 60s, when it was something you only did while at university. After the Christchurch earthquake, I ended up moving house 3 times in 2 years. Why? Because the landlord wanted or needed the house back. The first one, the farm the cottage was on was sold, and the new owner wanted it for worker accommodation. The second one, the owner's house was red-zoned[0], and he needed somewhere to live. The third one, the owners had bought it for their retirement, and were renting it out until then. Not that I knew that up front. But, 10 months in, they decided to retire. So how much cheaper was it to rent, considering the costs involved with moving, the cost of cleaning rentals you're leaving, the time you spend finding a new rental, and the letting fee that every property manager used to charge until recent legislation? And I haven't even mentioned the cost that such instability imposes on you and your family. My oldest son has lived in about 11 different houses. Renting! > A renter can walk away any time In my country, that wasn't true on a fixed term tenancy, you were liable for rent for the entire term. TL;DR - it depends. Oh, and fun fact, my mortgage repayments + taxes + insurance + maintenance are significantly cheaper than the rents I'd been paying for significantly worse houses. Which makes sense, when the "Mum and Dad" investors are using your rent + tax breaks to cover the ongoing costs until they can sell for sweet tax-free capital gains, of course you're paying more. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Residential_red_zone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Residential_red_zone