This report compares the Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) for Enexer Lithium Iron Phosphate (LiFePO₄) batteries and three common lead-acid battery types (AGM, Gel, and Flooded) over a 10-year lifecycle. The Enexer DL-12100 Deep Cycle LiFePO₄ is used as the benchmark of this analysis and all battery types are evaluated under identical conditions and general assumptions which include the same voltage, capacity, daily usage at 50% depth of discharge (DoD), and electricity costs for charging.
Despite a higher upfront cost compared to lead-acid batteries, LiFePO₄ batteries demonstrate a 64% and 75% lower TCO compared to AGM/Gel and Flooded batteries, respectively. This significant cost advantage is driven by:
- Superior Cycle Life: LiFePO₄ batteries last approximately 4,000 cycles (~11 years), compared to 500 cycles for AGM/Gel and 300 cycles for Flooded, eliminating the need for replacements over a 10-year period.
- Zero Replacement Cost: Only 1 battery is required over the 10-year period for LiFePO₄, compared to 6–11 replacements for lead-acid batteries.
- High Charging Efficiency: At 95% efficiency, LiFePO₄ batteries consume less energy to recharge than AGM/Gel (85%) and Flooded (80%), reducing electricity costs.
- Minimal Maintenance: LiFePO₄ and AGM/Gel batteries are maintenance-free. Flooded batteries require regular maintenance, contributing to increasing TCO over the 10 years.
Overall, switching from lead-acid to LiFePO₄ can yield anywhere up to an estimated 293% Return On Investment (ROI) over 10 years. Enexer’s LiFePO₄ batteries deliver a compelling combination of performance, longevity, safety, and economic advantage across a wide range of applications.
Introduction
Enexer is committed to helping customers make informed and effective decisions when it comes to energy storage and battery solutions. With the increasing demand for reliable, safe, and long-lasting battery technology in applications ranging from renewable energy systems to RVs and backup power, understanding the TCO is essential.
This report provides a simple comparison of the TCO between LiFePO₄ batteries and traditional lead-acid batteries (Flooded, Gel, and AGM). By evaluating key cost components over a 10-year lifecycle, the report aims to clarify the financial implications of each battery type beyond just the initial purchase price.
Explanation of Cost Components
|
Cost Component |
Description |
|
Initial Purchase Cost |
The upfront cost of buying one new 12V 100Ah battery at retail price. Prices vary by chemistry and as summarized in the latter table. |
|
Initial Installation Labour Cost |
Cost of installing the new battery (wiring, setup, safety checks, etc.) by a skilled technician or electrician. This cost is approximately the same for each battery type. |
|
Replacements Required |
Number of replacements needed for each battery type over 10 years based on their rated estimated life cycles. For this calculation, the end of life for each battery is when they fail to deliver 50% of initial capacity for lead-acid batteries and 70% for LiFePO₄ batteries. |
|
Battery Replacement Cost |
Cost of new additional batteries needed over 10 years based on lifespan. |
|
Replacement Labour Cost |
Cost of removing and installing a new replacement battery by a skilled technician or electrician. This cost is approximately the same for each battery type. |
|
Maintenance Labour Cost |
This is the annual servicing cost for flooded lead-acid batteries. It includes checking and topping off water levels, cleaning acid residue off the battery and surrounding areas, cleaning up and/or replacing nuts, bolts, and cables that have become badly corroded. LiFePO₄ batteries require no such maintenance during their lifetime. |
|
Charging Cost |
Electricity costs over 10 years to charge the battery. The cost has been adjusted to factor for charging efficiency. |
Cost Analysis Over 10 Years
|
LiFePO₄ |
Lead-Acid |
|||
|
Cost Component |
AGM |
Gel |
Flooded |
|
|
Initial Purchase |
$800 |
$350 |
$350 |
$250 |
|
Initial Installation Labour Cost |
$50 |
$50 |
$50 |
$50 |
|
Replacements Required |
0 |
6 |
6 |
11 |
|
Battery Replacement Cost |
$0 |
$2,100 |
$2,100 |
$2,750 |
|
Replacement Labour Cost |
$0 |
$300 |
$300 |
$550 |
|
Maintenance Labour Cost |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
$500 |
|
Charging Cost |
$281 |
$314 |
$314 |
$334 |
|
Total Cost of Ownership |
$1,131 |
$3,120 |
$3,120 |
$4,445 |
Notes:
1. Charging Cost is based on 2,190 kWh of usable energy over 10 years (0.6 kWh/day) and electricity rate of $0.122/kWh.
2. Charging efficiencies are based on:
1. LiFePO4 = 95%
2. AGM/Gel = 85%
3. Flooded = 80%
The Results
The cost analysis clearly demonstrates that the Enexer DL-12100 LiFePO₄ battery offers the most cost-effective solution compared to traditional lead-acid battery types, including AGM, Gel, and Flooded batteries over an extended period.
With a TCO of $1,131, the Enexer DL-12100 LiFePO₄ battery incurs significantly lower expenses than AGM and Gel batteries (each at $3,120) and Flooded lead-acid batteries (at $4,445). This cost advantage is primarily driven by the absence of replacement costs and minimal charging losses over the duration of the analysis period. Unlike the lead-acid options, which require between 6 to 11 battery replacements and corresponding labour costs, the Enexer DL-12100 maintains its performance for the full 10 years without needing replacement.
In addition, the higher charging efficiency of the Enexer DL-12100 LiFePO₄ battery (95%) contributes to reduced electricity costs over time compared to the less efficient AGM/Gel (85%) and Flooded (80%) batteries.
Beyond the clear financial savings, the Enexer DL-12100 LiFePO₄ battery provides significant intangible benefits that enhance user experience and peace of mind. Unlike traditional lead-acid batteries, which often require routine maintenance such as checking fluid levels, cleaning terminals, or ensuring proper ventilation, the LiFePO₄ battery is completely maintenance-free. Users can rely on consistent performance without the hassle of periodic upkeep or the inconvenience of unexpected system downtime due to battery failure. Additionally, knowing that the battery will not need to be replaced over a 10-year period eliminates the stress of planning for future costs, service interruptions, and physical replacement work—especially in hard-to-access or remote installations. This long-term reliability allows users to focus on enjoying their systems with confidence, whether for recreational use, off-grid living, or critical backup power.
Overall, the Enexer DL-12100 proves to be a superior long-term investment, combining durability, efficiency, and minimal maintenance to deliver a TCO that is 64% to 75% lower than its lead-acid counterparts.
Summary
Over a 10-year period, the Enexer DL-12100 LiFePO₄ battery provides the lowest TCO. While the initial purchase cost is higher than lead-acid alternatives, the longer lifespan, better efficiency, safety features, and virtually maintenance-free operation make LiFePO₄ batteries a far superior long-term investment for any suitable application.
Disclaimer
1. This analysis is based on Enexer DL-12100 battery pricing and industry average pricing for the other lead-acid battery types as of May 2025. Actual financial and performance results may vary depending on various other factors such as specific lead-acid battery brand pricing, application, environment, usage, local hydro utility costs, etc.
2. All currencies indicated are based on Canadian Dollar (CAD) and do not include any taxes, unless otherwise specified.
3. The electricity rates and costs indicated in this report are based on residential hydro utility rates and do not factor time-of-use rates, delivery charges, regulatory charges, or additional charges. These additional factors or different utility rates would not impact the overall intent and findings in this report, although they may impact specific values indicated in the report.
4. Labour rates indicated in this report are indicative only and for reference only. Labour rates may vary based on geographic location, market conditions, etc. Labour costs for the different battery types are typically the same and therefore do not impact the overall intent and findings in this report, although they may impact specific values indicated in the report.