The entry-level Citation M2 against the larger Phenom 300E, weighing single-pilot simplicity against cabin, range and resale.
The Phenom 300 wins almost every capability row because it is a larger class of business jet, not because the Citation M2 is a poor one. It carries more, travels farther and faster, and offers the cabin and market acceptance a revenue or corporate mission may require. The M2 is the disciplined choice for an owner-pilot whose usual party and sectors fit it, keeping acquisition, programmes and operating demands closer to the entry-jet brief. Do not pay to transport empty cabin. Count the trips that genuinely need the Embraer's range or load; if they are rare, chartering those while owning the Cessna is the more resilient plan.
The table below uses the same versioned PlaneFit dataset as the Finder. Prices and operating costs are planning estimates, not quotations.
| Decision factor | Cessna Citation M2View aircraft profile | Embraer Phenom 300EView aircraft profile |
|---|---|---|
| Typical market year | 2019 | 2024 |
| Estimated purchase | €3.75m | €8.73m |
| Annual cash cost at 80 h | €364k | €542k |
| Five-year cash outlay | €5.57m | €11.44m |
| Cruise speed | 404 kt | 464 kt |
| Advertised range | 1550 nm | 2010 nm |
| Seats | 7 | 10 |
| Realistic payload | 600 kg | 1310 kg |
| Runway need | 978 m | 978 m |
| Landing gear | Retractable tricycle | Retractable tricycle |
| Ratings and endorsements | Type rating | Type rating |
| Data confidence | Normalized for direct comparison | Normalized for direct comparison |
| Main trade-off | Owner-friendly avionics and strong entry-level jet economics, but cabin and payload remain compact and programme coverage matters. | Class-leading speed, range and resale strength, but acquisition, crew, engine programs and maintenance demand a professional budget. |
A factual first pass. Mission, condition and configuration can outweigh a brochure advantage.
They do not cross. The Cessna Citation M2 is the cheaper of the two at every utilisation from zero to 300 hours a year, on purchase and running cost together, so there is no break-even point to find. That is worth knowing plainly: on cost alone this is not a trade-off, and the case for the other aircraft has to be made on mission, cabin, speed or access rather than on eventual savings.
| Five-year cash, including purchase | Cessna Citation M2 | Embraer Phenom 300E | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| 40 h / year | $5.63m (€5.21m) | $11.79m (€10.91m) | $6.16m (€5.7m) to Cessna Citation M2 |
| 100 h / year | $6.21m (€5.75m) | $12.65m (€11.71m) | $6.43m (€5.96m) to Cessna Citation M2 |
| 200 h / year | $7.18m (€6.65m) | $14.08m (€13.03m) | $6.89m (€6.38m) to Cessna Citation M2 |
The gap widens as utilisation rises, which is the part a headline price comparison hides. Every figure uses the same planning model as the rest of the site: indicative market prices, a fixed annual base and a direct hourly cost, before financing, depreciation and tax.
Advertised range is a still-air, best-case number. With 4 people aboard and realistic reserves, plan on about 1,039 nm from the Cessna Citation M2 against 1,347 nm from the Embraer Phenom 300E. On a return trip without refuelling, that is the radius that decides which destinations are on the list at all.
Against the 28,815 airports in the PlaneFit database that publish a runway length, the Cessna Citation M2 has enough runway at 14,639 of them and the Embraer Phenom 300E at 14,639, comparing each aircraft’s take-off requirement of 3,209 ft and 3,209 ft against the longest runway on the field.
This is a planning comparison, not a statement that any particular operation is legal or advisable. It ignores surface, slope, elevation, temperature, obstacles and how heavily the aircraft is loaded, all of which extend the requirement. It also compares take-off distance only: landing distance is frequently the binding constraint and PlaneFit does not hold approved landing distances, so a field in these counts is not necessarily a field you can get back out of, or into.
Nothing separates them here. Both require a type rating, so a pilot qualified for one is qualified for the other.
Seven-seat single-pilot entry-level business jet. Its central ownership trade-off is: Owner-friendly avionics and strong entry-level jet economics, but cabin and payload remain compact and programme coverage matters.
Planning snapshot: $4.05m (€3.75m) indicative price and $393k (€364k) annual cash cost at 80 hours.
Read the full aircraft profileTen-seat high-performance light business jet. Its central ownership trade-off is: Class-leading speed, range and resale strength, but acquisition, crew, engine programs and maintenance demand a professional budget.
Planning snapshot: $9.43m (€8.73m) indicative price and $585k (€542k) annual cash cost at 80 hours.
Read the full aircraft profile