Interest-Only vs Amortizing: How to Choose for CRE Loans
By Trevor Damyan, Commercial Mortgage Broker at Commercial Lending Solutions
Commercial real estate sponsors face a structural choice on most permanent loans: interest-only (no principal pay-down during the IO period, lower debt service) or amortizing (principal pay-down on a 25 or 30 year schedule, higher debt service). Most agency and life co loans offer a partial IO window (1 to 5 years typical) with amortization for the remaining term; some loans run full-term IO at lower leverage. The decision affects cash flow, total interest cost, refinance risk, and the sponsor's distribution capability over the hold period.
Get Quotes from Both →Interest-Only vs Amortizing
Rate ranges reflect indicative pricing as of June 2026, sourced from active CLS CRE quote pipeline. Pricing is property, sponsor, and structure dependent.
When Interest-Only Is the Right Call
Interest-only wins when sponsors prioritize cash flow during the hold period, when the deal is part of an active syndication strategy with quarterly distribution requirements, or when value-add returns are projected to drive equity gains rather than principal pay-down.
- Active syndication with investor distribution requirements during hold
- Value-add or repositioning where return is projected through equity appreciation, not principal pay-down
- Lower leverage (60 to 65 percent LTV) where lender will quote full-term IO
- Sponsor wants maximum cash flow during the hold for capital deployment elsewhere
- Sponsor has alternative principal pay-down strategy (cash from refinance, sale, or syndication)
- Cash flow stress in the operating model where IO supports DSCR through value-add period
When Amortizing Is the Right Call
Amortizing wins on long-term hold strategies where principal pay-down builds equity, on family office and generational ownership where the cumulative interest savings is meaningful, and on lender programs where amortizing pricing is materially tighter than IO.
- Long-term hold horizon (10+ years) where principal pay-down builds meaningful equity
- Family office or generational ownership prioritizing equity build over distributions
- Sponsor wants reduced refinance risk at maturity through declining balance
- Lender pricing premium on IO is meaningful (sometimes 25+ bps)
- Conservative sponsor profile prioritizing balance sheet strength over cash flow
- Property cash flow supports the higher amortizing debt service comfortably
How to Choose Between Interest-Only and Amortizing
Calculate the cash flow trade-off. On a $20M loan at 5.85 percent over a 10-year term, full-term interest-only generates approximately $1.17M of annual debt service. The same loan amortizing on a 30-year schedule generates approximately $1.42M of annual debt service. The $250K per year of cash flow difference is meaningful for syndication distributions or sponsor cash needs.
Calculate the total interest cost difference. Over the 10-year term, full-term interest-only costs approximately $11.7M of interest. Amortizing on a 30-year schedule costs approximately $13.3M of interest including principal pay-down. The $1.6M difference reflects faster equity build under amortizing.
Evaluate the maturity profile. At maturity, full-term IO leaves $20M to refinance. Amortizing leaves approximately $16.3M to refinance after 10 years (about $3.7M of principal paid down). The lower refinance balance reduces refinance risk if rates have moved.
Consider lender pricing. Some lenders price IO at the same coupon as amortizing on lower leverage; others charge 5 to 25 basis points premium for IO. Run both quotes and evaluate the dollar value of the IO trade-off.
A Real Decision in Action
On a $24M multifamily acquisition with a 5-year planned hold and a value-add strategy targeting 25 percent rent growth, the sponsor evaluated full-term IO versus 2-year IO with 28 years amortization remaining. Full-term IO at 65 percent LTV quoted at 5.95 percent fixed 5-year. 2-year IO with amortization quoted at 5.85 percent fixed 5-year (10 basis points inside on the amortizing structure). Full-term IO produced approximately $192K per year of additional cash flow over the 5-year hold ($960K total), supporting investor distributions and sponsor reserves. The 10 basis point pricing premium translated to approximately $24K per year ($120K over 5 years). The sponsor took full-term IO because the cash flow advantage materially exceeded the pricing premium and the value-add strategy targeted equity appreciation rather than principal pay-down.
All deal references anonymize borrower and lender identities and use city-level geography only.
Interest-only versus amortizing is genuinely a question of strategy, not pricing. Active syndications with distribution mandates pick IO every time. Generational family office holders pick amortizing. The middle ground requires running the cash flow math against the sponsor's actual capital needs.
Related Comparisons
Explore By Market and Program
Interest-Only vs Amortizing FAQ
Get Quotes from Both Interest-Only and Amortizing
Tell us about your deal. We will run it past lenders on both sides and send you side-by-side terms within 48 hours.
Apply for Financing →