Paint, screed, tile and POP priced from one wall area so a client can choose.
Painting, tiling and finishes. 5 questions answered below, each with the arithmetic behind it and the limits of what the tool decides. Open the Finish Comparison tool.
Two finishes can cover the same wall and cost very different amounts over their lives. This comparison sets them side by side on the same area: material, preparation and the interval at which each has to be redone, so a cheaper first coat that fails in five years is shown as the more expensive choice. The comparison is deliberately narrow. It does not judge appearance, and it does not include labour unless you enter a rate, because labour rates vary by trade and by market in a way that would swamp the comparison. What it does well is make the arithmetic of a substitution visible before the specification is fixed, which is when the decision is still free.
A hundred square metres of wall, once in a decorative coating at one price, against a cheaper coating at a shorter interval. Over fifteen years the cheaper one is renewed three times and the dearer one twice, and the preparation before each renewal is the same. The comparison adds three applications against two and the difference reverses. Neither finish changed; the horizon did, which is why the interval is an input.
Two finishes on the same area, with their material, their preparation and their renewal interval, and the cost of each over the horizon you set. That is a narrower claim than it sounds: it compares what can be measured, and it says so. Where a finish has no stated interval, the comparison reports that it cannot be put on a life basis rather than choosing one.
Because the cheapest finish to buy is often not the cheapest to keep, and the difference shows up years after the decision was made by someone else. Comparing two options on one application hides that entirely. On a rental property or a commercial wall, the finishing cost over ten years can be several times the first application, and that is a design decision rather than a maintenance one.
Material and preparation are included, and labour is optional at a rate you enter. Leaving labour out is deliberate: rates vary so widely between trades and markets that including a default would make the comparison a comparison of labour assumptions. Where you have a rate you trust, enter it and the comparison carries it. That is usually enough to settle a substitution argument, because the labour rarely differs enough between two similar finishes to overturn a material difference that compounds over fifteen years.
No. It compares the options you give it and shows the arithmetic. Which finish suits a wall depends on the substrate, the exposure, the room's use, the appearance wanted and who is paying for maintenance. The tool's job is to make sure the cost consequence of that decision is visible rather than discovered later.
Yes. The comparison works on any measured area, so a single wall in a problematic corner can be assessed on its own, which is often where the decision actually needs making. The quantities are calculated from the area you enter, so a partial area is a partial comparison rather than a scaled down whole building.