Insights · Comparison
New vs used
equipment finance.
The right answer depends on how long you’ll keep it, how hard it’ll work, and how the finance is structured. Here’s the operator-honest comparison.
It’s a hold-period question.
New equipment finances at lower rates over longer terms with stronger residuals — but you wear the first-year depreciation hit. Used equipment costs less up-front and has already absorbed early depreciation, but finance terms are capped by age and rates are typically 0.5–2 percentage points higher. The right pick depends on hold period, utilisation, and how mission-critical the asset is to your contracts.
Where the trade-offs land.
| New | Used | |
|---|---|---|
| Sticker price | Higher | 20–50% less, often more value/$ earning capacity |
| Finance term | Up to 7 years (sometimes longer for new) | Capped by age — typically 5–7 years |
| Rate | Lower (better lender appetite) | Slightly higher (typically 0.5–2 pts) |
| Depreciation hit (year 1) | 15–25% | Already absorbed by previous owner |
| Maintenance & downtime | Warranty period, fewer surprises | Higher — service history matters enormously |
| Resale at end of term | Stronger (newer at exit) | Diminished — plan for trade-out |
| Best for | Long hold (5+ yr), high utilisation, mission-critical | Short-term contracts, supplemental kit, returning to market |
How TMF actually picks.
You hold long, run hard.
- ✓Hold period 5+ years
- ✓Mission-critical asset (downtime hurts)
- ✓24/7 or high-utilisation work
- ✓Strong lender relationship for term + rate
You need cash-on-cash return.
- ✓Specific contract under 3 years
- ✓Supplementing existing fleet
- ✓Cash deployment matters more than rate
- ✓Service history exists and machine has been worked, not flogged