Currency changes do not convert amounts. Defaults are illustrative, not regional estimates. Saved calculations keep their currency; use the calculator’s currency control to change it.
Lifestyle & Spending · 04
Twenty a month forever sounds harmless. With compounding over decades, it is tens of thousands in lost future wealth. Sanity check before the next sign-up.
Real lifetime cost
$20/mo for 15 years at % real
Compound growth missed
$2,216
Material lifetime cost. Worth pausing to confirm it earns its place.
Illustrative figures only. The model assumes constant monthly spend; most subscriptions raise prices yearly, which makes the true lifetime cost higher. For your specific situation, consult a qualified adviser.
Every recurring spend, compounded.
Worth runs this maths on every subscription in your life and surfaces the ones that quietly compound into real money. Join the waitlist.
Frequently asked questions
Doesn't real return change the maths?
Real return after inflation is what matters because the comparison is future wealth today's money. Six per cent real is consistent with long-term equity index returns of roughly ten per cent minus three per cent inflation. Using nominal numbers overstates the lifetime cost.
What about price inflation on the subscription?
Most subscriptions raise prices yearly. The calculator assumes a constant monthly amount, so the result is an underestimate. A gym or streaming service that keeps raising fees costs more than the model shows.
Does this argument work for one-off purchases?
Less so. The compounding cost grows with how long the spend repeats, so a single one-off is just the cash plus its forgone growth, not a recurring drag. Use this calculator for things that auto-renew. For one-off purchases, the opportunity cost is straightforward: amount times (1 plus real return) to the years.
How should I act on the result?
Use it as a sanity check before signing up, and once a year for things you already pay. Cancel what is not worth the lifetime number. Keep what is. The number is not an argument against spending, it is an argument against unexamined recurring spending.