The Cirrus SR20 against the Diamond DA40 NG, two modern composite four-seaters with very different engines and very different fuel bills.
Price does not enter into this one. The two land close enough together on acquisition that choosing on sticker is choosing on rounding, which is unusual for aircraft built this differently. The DA40 wins on what it was designed around, which is fuel: the Austro diesel runs on Jet A and takes little of it, and the annual estimate follows. The SR20 answers with CAPS, a fifth seat and the largest owner community in the class, which matters for training, for resale and for how fast you find someone who has already fixed your problem. Ask where you will actually buy fuel and whether a shop in reach knows the Austro, because a diesel with no local support stops being the efficient choice.
The table below uses the same versioned PlaneFit dataset as the Finder. Prices and operating costs are planning estimates, not quotations.
| Decision factor | Cirrus SR20 G7+View aircraft profile | Diamond DA40 NGView aircraft profile |
|---|---|---|
| Typical market year | 2026 | 2026 |
| Estimated purchase | €600k | €601k |
| Annual cash cost at 80 h | €50k | €36k |
| Five-year cash outlay | €852k | €781k |
| Cruise speed | 155 kt | 145 kt |
| Advertised range | 709 nm | 934 nm |
| Seats | 5 | 4 |
| Realistic payload | 342 kg | 349 kg |
| Runway need | 514 m | 590 m |
| Landing gear | Fixed tricycle | Fixed tricycle |
| Ratings and endorsements | None beyond the certificate | None beyond the certificate |
| Data confidence | Normalized for direct comparison | Normalized for direct comparison |
| Main trade-off | Modern, safe and easy to operate, but cabin payload falls quickly with five occupants and ownership costs exceed conventional trainers. | Exceptional fuel efficiency and modern avionics, but rear-seat loading and diesel-engine support require careful mission and maintenance planning. |
A factual first pass. Mission, condition and configuration can outweigh a brochure advantage.
They do not cross. The Diamond DA40 NG 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 | Cirrus SR20 G7+ | Diamond DA40 NG | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| 40 h / year | $870k (€806k) | $811k (€751k) | $59k (€55k) to Diamond DA40 NG |
| 100 h / year | $945k (€875k) | $860k (€796k) | $85k (€79k) to Diamond DA40 NG |
| 200 h / year | $1.07m (€990k) | $941k (€871k) | $129k (€119k) to Diamond DA40 NG |
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 475 nm from the Cirrus SR20 G7+ against 626 nm from the Diamond DA40 NG. 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 Cirrus SR20 G7+ has enough runway at 26,429 of them and the Diamond DA40 NG at 25,104, comparing each aircraft’s take-off requirement of 1,686 ft and 1,936 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. Neither carries an endorsement or rating requirement of its own beyond a pilot certificate for the category and class.
Five-seat modern trainer and personal touring aircraft. Its central ownership trade-off is: Modern, safe and easy to operate, but cabin payload falls quickly with five occupants and ownership costs exceed conventional trainers.
Planning snapshot: $648k (€600k) indicative price and $54k (€50k) annual cash cost at 80 hours.
Read the full aircraft profileFour-seat Jet A training and touring aircraft. Its central ownership trade-off is: Exceptional fuel efficiency and modern avionics, but rear-seat loading and diesel-engine support require careful mission and maintenance planning.
Planning snapshot: $649k (€601k) indicative price and $39k (€36k) annual cash cost at 80 hours.
Read the full aircraft profile