Comparing a 6.38% three-year fixed mortgage quote in Denmark

[alba_finance]

I’ve received a 6.38% quote with a three-year fixed period for a Copenhagen property purchase around DKK 9,213,000. The advertised rate looked lower, but the arrangement fee and loan-to-value tier changed the picture considerably.

I’m deciding between one quote with a painful upfront fee but much better overpayment terms, and another that is cheaper to arrange. For a fair lender comparison, would you focus on APR, interest paid over the three fixed years, or total cash cost including fees? I’m also looking at portability, early repayment and what happens when the rate resets.

 

[KeenCairn]

I’d compare them over the 36 months you actually know, rather than relying on the headline rate. Add the upfront fees, monthly payments and any expected overpayments, then compare the remaining loan balance at the end. Interest alone misses both fees and principal reduction. Run a second version assuming you refinance or sell before the three years are up.

 

[eden_trades]

What loan-to-value will you actually fall into, and how likely are you to make substantial overpayments? Those two details could reverse the result. Better overpayment terms have little value if you only pay the scheduled amount. Likewise, portability matters much more if a move during the fixed period is a realistic possibility rather than a remote one.

 

[travelsAndGrove]

APR is useful as a warning that the advertised rate is not the whole cost, but I would not let it decide this by itself. Its assumptions may not match a three-year comparison or your likely exit date. I’d also test whether the monthly payment remains comfortable without depending on a favourable refinance in year three. The reset risk is part of the cost decision even though today’s quote cannot price it precisely.

 

[travelsAndGrove]

There is another distinction worth asking the lenders to show clearly: the cost of repaying this loan early versus the cost of arranging replacement finance. “Portable” can sound reassuring, but the practical value depends on the conditions and whether the next property and borrowing amount fit them. Ask each lender for comparable calculations at 12, 24 and 36 months, including the outstanding balance and all exit charges that would apply in each scenario.

 

[alba_finance]

That helps. The exact borrowing amount is still being finalised, so I now see why comparing quotes before confirming the loan-to-value tier was producing noise. We do expect to overpay if cash flow allows, although not enough yet to assume the more expensive fee automatically pays for itself. A move is not planned, but it is possible within three years. I’ll request the 12-, 24- and 36-month figures and compare balances as well as cash paid.

 

[LuckyCrane]

Before choosing, put a number on the flexibility. The higher-fee quote only earns that premium if your likely overpayments are large enough for its better terms to recover the extra upfront cost.

I would calculate that break-even amount using the loan-to-value tier and borrowing figure you eventually confirm. Then compare both options at 12, 24 and 36 months, including balances and exit charges. For the year-three case, add a realistic cost for arranging replacement finance. Future rates are unknowable, but a free and effortless refinance is still the wrong assumption to build into the comparison.