Ladabo

Dollar-Cost Averaging Calculator

What buying a fixed amount at regular intervals actually gets you.

months

Share, fund or coin price when you begin.

Results update as you type. Nothing is sent anywhere.

Final value
Total invested
Gain
Return
Average price you paid
Same money invested all at once Everything in on day one instead.

How this is worked out

Dollar-cost averaging means investing a fixed amount of money at regular intervals, rather than a fixed number of units. That distinction is the whole mechanism. When the price is low your fixed amount buys more units; when it is high it buys fewer. So you automatically accumulate more units at cheaper prices without having to judge anything.

The average price you pay is therefore not the simple average of the prices. It is the harmonic mean, which is always lower:

average paid = total invested ÷ total units bought

The calculator simulates each purchase individually rather than using a shortcut, which is why the price-path option changes the answer. Try switching between the three paths with the same start and end prices. The endpoints are identical; the results are not. A price that dips and recovers hands you cheap units in the middle and beats the straight line. A price that spikes and falls back does the opposite.

This is the honest version of the idea. Dollar-cost averaging is not a way of making more money on average — over a rising market, investing everything at the start usually wins, because the money is exposed for longer. What it does is reduce the consequence of being unlucky with your timing, and make regular investing psychologically survivable.

A worked example

500 a month for 60 months, price starting at 100 and ending at 150, rising steadily:

  • Invested: 30,000
  • Average price paid: about 122
  • Final value: about 36,800, a 23% return
  • The same 30,000 invested on day one: 45,000

The lump sum wins clearly here, and that is not a flaw in the method — it is what happens when a market rises the whole way through and you spent five years slowly getting invested.

Now switch the price path to fell first, then recovered. Same start, same end. The averaging result rises to roughly 43,000, because the monthly buys were picking up units at 70 and 80 while the lump-sum investor sat through the fall fully exposed. Its advantage is protection against bad timing, not superior returns.

What this doesn't cover

  • The three price paths are illustrative shapes, not forecasts. Real prices do not move in smooth curves. They exist to show how path affects outcome, which a single average return conceals.
  • Trading fees, spreads and currency conversion costs are not deducted. On small monthly amounts, flat per-trade fees can matter a lot.
  • Dividends and distributions are not included, so for income-paying investments the real result would be higher.
  • Nothing here is a recommendation to invest in anything.

Common questions

Is averaging in better than investing a lump sum?

Studies of historical markets generally find that lump-sum investing wins more often, simply because markets rise more often than they fall and earlier money is exposed for longer. Averaging in wins when prices fall after you start. Many people use it anyway because it removes the decision of when to act, which is a real benefit even when it is not the mathematical one.

Does this apply to buying every payday from salary?

That is the most common case, and there is no alternative to compare it with — you cannot lump-sum money you do not have yet. The comparison only matters when you are holding a sum and deciding whether to deploy it at once or in pieces.

What interval should I use?

Monthly is standard because it matches how people are paid. Weekly slightly smooths the price you pay but usually adds fees. The interval matters far less than the consistency.

More investment calculators