Comparing a 6.36% five-year fixed mortgage quote in Ireland

N

NimblePlan

First-time buyer
Established
Choosing on the headline rate alone could leave me with an affordable-looking payment but a poor result if I move or repay early. The Dublin purchase price is about €887,800, and the quote is 6.36% fixed for five years. A lower promotional figure initially caught my attention, but fees and the applicable loan-to-value band affect the real cost.

For comparison, should I calculate all payments and charges over the five-year fixed period, then include the balance still owed at the end? APR seems useful as a check, though it may cover a longer horizon than the decision I am making.

I also need to test the monthly payment and the terms for portability and early repayment. For example, an offer that works over five years may be less attractive if I have to exit in year three. What figures would you put side by side before narrowing this to two lenders?
 
For a five-year decision, I’d compare total payments and lender fees over those five years, plus the mortgage balance remaining at the end. A low payment can hide slower capital repayment. Keep APR as a cross-check, but it may reflect assumptions extending beyond the fixed period.
 
What are the actual loan amount and mortgage term? The €887,800 purchase price alone doesn’t reveal the monthly payment or where you sit in the loan-to-value tiers.
 
I’d also be cautious about comparing “total interest over five years” in isolation. Two offers can produce different remaining balances, so the cheaper-looking one may just postpone more of the cost.
 
The deposit matters here for another reason: if a modest increase would move the borrowing into a different loan-to-value tier, compare that option separately. Don’t assume it is worthwhile, though—you would be tying up more cash to obtain the lower rate.
 
Start with affordability rather than the ranking of the quotes. Work out whether the payment at 6.36% leaves enough room for property costs and an emergency buffer. Then test a higher payment after the five-year fix, because the replacement rate is unknown.
 
I wouldn’t push APR too far into the background. It is useful precisely because headline rates can omit the effect of fees. I’d use APR to identify offers worth examining, then compare the five-year cash cost and ending balance for the finalists.
 
That’s fair, Julia. My concern is only that APR can look definitive when the buyer expects to refinance after five years. It still belongs in the table, but the assumptions behind it need to be understood.
 
On portability, ask what it actually permits. Can the existing fixed rate move to another property, is a fresh affordability assessment required, and what happens if the replacement property needs a larger or smaller loan? A simple “portable” label doesn’t answer those scenarios.
 
Portability and early repayment also need to be considered together. A move may involve repaying the original mortgage before the replacement completes. The written offer should explain whether that triggers a charge and whether any relief depends on timing or conditions.
 
How likely are you to move, refinance or make substantial overpayments during those five years? If none is likely, the restrictions have less practical weight. If one is plausible, a slightly higher cash cost could buy useful flexibility.
 
The refinance assumption deserves a pessimistic version. At the end of year five, compare three cases: refinancing at a better rate, taking a similar rate, and being unable or unwilling to switch. Future income, eligibility and property value may not cooperate with today’s plan.
 
A spreadsheet could keep this manageable: upfront fees, monthly payment, total five-year payments, allowed overpayments, possible early-exit cost, and balance after month 60. Put portability conditions in a notes column rather than trying to assign them an invented euro value.
 
Check when each arrangement fee is paid and whether the quoted mortgage figures assume it is added to the borrowing or paid separately. Otherwise two calculations can include the same fee in different ways and still appear comparable.
 
And use the proposed loan amount in every calculation, not the €887,800 price. If you are testing different deposits to reach another loan-to-value tier, make a separate row for each deposit so the extra cash contribution stays visible.
 
Monthly payment is necessary for the household budget, but it shouldn’t decide the lender comparison by itself. I’d eliminate any unaffordable offer first, then compare total cost and the year-five balance among those that remain.
 
There is also a trade-off between paying more deposit and retaining accessible savings. Crossing a loan-to-value boundary may reduce mortgage cost, but leaving yourself cash-poor after completion can be a worse outcome. Put a minimum cash buffer into the decision before testing larger deposits.
 
I’d send each lender the same short list of questions and request answers based on the actual quote: all lender fees, payment during the fix, balance after five years, overpayment limits or charges, early-repayment treatment, portability conditions, and what rate applies when the fix ends.
 
Keep purchase costs that are identical whichever lender you choose outside the mortgage comparison. Include a cost only if the lender or product changes it. That prevents the table becoming a general buying budget instead of a comparison of offers.
 
My decision rule would be: affordable under a stressed post-fix payment, acceptable cash reserve after the deposit and fees, then lowest five-year cost after allowing for the flexibility you genuinely expect to use. That is more defensible than choosing either APR or 6.36% alone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top