Author: Compare Fitness Equipment

The standard version of this comparison takes a membership fee, multiplies it by thirty-six, compares it to the price of some equipment and declares a winner. It reliably produces the wrong answer, because it ignores travel time, the cost of equipment you do not need to buy, and the fact that the two options have very different rates of actually being used.

Here is a method you can run with your own figures. We are not going to invent prices — memberships and equipment vary too much by location and specification for a worked example to be honest.

The full cost of a membership over three years

1. Monthly fee × 36. The obvious part.
2. Joining fee, if there is one.
3. Travel. Fuel or fares, per visit, multiplied by your realistic visit frequency. This is frequently the largest hidden cost.
4. Travel time, valued honestly. Twenty minutes each way, three times a week, is over a hundred hours across three years.
5. Extras — classes outside the base membership, parking, lockers.
6. Contract terms. Minimum periods, notice periods and annual increases.

The full cost of home equipment over three years

1. Equipment, including delivery and assembly.
2. Flooring and storage, which are not optional and are usually forgotten.
3. Consumables — deck lubricant, friction pads, straps, water treatment.
4. Repairs outside warranty, which are hard to predict but are not zero.
5. Electricity, for powered machines. Small, but real.
6. Room heating, if the space is a garage or outbuilding you would not otherwise heat. This is the cost people most consistently miss.
7. Minus resale value. Equipment is an asset. Plates, bars and racks retain value well; connected equipment and multi-station machines much less so. Subtract a realistic figure rather than assuming zero.

The factors that decide it, and are not financial

The variable that dominates the calculation

Neither cost is what settles this. Frequency of use is.

A membership used four times a week is excellent value and a membership used twice a month is the most expensive fitness product available. Equipment used regularly for three years costs very little per session; the same equipment used for six weeks is an expensive piece of furniture.

So the question worth answering first is not which is cheaper. It is: which one will I actually use? And the honest predictor is your own history. If you have held a membership before, how often did you go in month six? If you have bought equipment before, was it still in use a year later?

The option that is usually better than either

For a large number of people the best answer is not one or the other. It is a small amount of home equipment that covers the training you will do on a wet Tuesday, plus either a membership or occasional pay-as-you-go access for the things you cannot replicate at home.

This works because it targets the actual failure mode of each option: the membership fails on travel friction in bad weather and busy weeks, and the home setup fails on breadth and load ceiling. Covering the ordinary sessions at home and the exceptional ones elsewhere addresses both, and it usually costs less than a full home setup.

Working it through

1. Write down both three-year totals with your real numbers, including travel and heating.
2. Subtract a realistic resale value from the equipment total.
3. Estimate your honest weekly frequency for each option, based on what you have actually done before.
4. Divide each total by the number of sessions it produces. Compare cost per session, not cost.
5. Then check the non-financial column above for anything that overrides the arithmetic — childcare and travel distance frequently do.

Three situations where the answer is clear

Most of this comparison is genuinely balanced. Three cases are not:

• Small children at home. Home equipment wins decisively. Training while children sleep is possible; a gym trip during the same window is not, and the childcare cost alone frequently exceeds the equipment.
• You want to lift heavy and varied. A membership wins decisively. Replicating a full free-weight and machine floor at home is expensive and space-hungry, and the load ceiling at home is set by what you can afford and store.
• You have never sustained a training habit before. A short pay-as-you-go or monthly membership wins, because it is the cheapest way to find out whether you will train at all. Buying equipment to answer that question is an expensive experiment with poor resale on the downside.

What the arithmetic misses in both directions

Two things distort this comparison in opposite directions and both are worth naming.

Against the gym: travel time is a real cost that never appears in the calculation. Twenty minutes each way, three times a week, is over a hundred hours across three years — and more importantly, it is the friction that turns a bad-weather evening into a missed session.

Against home equipment: the resale value people assume is often optimistic for the wrong categories. Plates, bars and racks hold value well. Connected equipment, multi-station machines and large cardio machines depreciate substantially, and the awkwardness of moving them depresses the price further. Subtract a realistic figure, not a hopeful one.

The contract details worth reading before signing either

1. Membership: minimum term, notice period, how increases are applied, whether freezing is possible and what it costs, and whether off-peak restrictions match your actual schedule.
2. Equipment: the returns window for large items as a date rather than a duration, whether collection is charged on returns, and the warranty periods read separately for frame, motor, parts and labour.

Related reading

• Start here: Cardio Machine Comparison by Space, Noise and Cost per Session
• Free Weights Against Machines for Home Training
• Complete Home Gym Packages Against Building Piece by Piece
• Treadmill Against Exercise Bike for Home Use
• Core and Midsection Equipment Compared
• Home Gym Equipment Under £2,500
• Browse all equipment categories
• Not sure where to start? Try the equipment recommendation tool

Retailers sell home gym packages because they solve a genuine problem: a first-time buyer does not know what to buy, and a curated bundle removes twenty decisions. That convenience is real. It also has a cost, and the cost is usually paid in equipment that does not get used.

What a package is genuinely good at

• Compatibility. Everything works together. The plates fit the bar, the bar fits the rack, the bench fits inside it. This is not trivial — incompatibility is one of the more common and more expensive mistakes made by people buying piecemeal.
• One delivery, one assembly. Large equipment is awkward to receive. Doing it once is materially easier than doing it five times.
• Bundle pricing. Genuine on the accessories and flooring, which are the items buyers otherwise postpone indefinitely.
• A complete starting point. You can train properly from day one rather than waiting for the next purchase.

What a package tends to cost you

1. It is specified for an average person with an average goal in an average room. Your ceiling height, floor construction and training goal are not average.
2. The weakest item drags. Packages are assembled to a price, and something in the bundle is usually the item the retailer had spare. Frequently it is the bench, which is the piece you are in contact with most.
3. You get equipment you will not use. Accessories are cheap to include and make the package look substantial. They are also the things that end up in a cupboard.
4. The load ceiling may be set by the package. A fixed plate selection determines both your maximum and your smallest increment, and the smallest increment is what limits progression.
5. No information advantage. Buying everything on day one means every decision is made when you know least about your own training.

How to evaluate a package properly

Price every item in the bundle separately, then apply one test to each: would I have bought this on its own?

If the answer to the test is yes for most of the substantial items, the package is good value. If it is yes for three items and no for four, you are paying a discount on things you did not want, and the discount is smaller than the spending.

The case for building piece by piece

Buying in stages is cheaper and produces a better-matched setup, at the cost of patience:

1. Start with the bar, plates and a bench. The highest capability per pound, and nothing here becomes obsolete.
2. Train for two months. This is the part that cannot be bought. You will learn what you actually do, what you avoid, and what the room can take.
3. Then buy the rack, flooring and storage, specified by what you now know rather than what you guessed.
4. Then add the specific pieces that solve problems you have actually met.

The obvious objection is that you cannot squat safely without a rack, and that is correct. The answer is to bring the rack forward if squatting is central to your plan — the principle is to sequence by information, not to defer safety.

Who each route suits

• A package suits a first-time buyer who wants to start immediately, values one delivery and one assembly, is not confident about compatibility, and has a fairly standard room and a fairly general goal.
• Building up suits anyone with a specific goal, an awkward room, a constrained budget, or previous training experience — and anyone who would rather own four good things than eight adequate ones.

There is also a sensible middle route that people rarely consider: buy the package’s core items as a bundle if the pricing is genuinely better, and decline the accessories. Many retailers will do this. It is worth asking.

The compatibility trap that packages genuinely protect you from

It is worth being fair to packages on this point, because it is the mistake that costs piecemeal buyers the most:

• Plate bore against bar sleeve. 50 mm Olympic plates do not fit a 25 mm standard bar. This is the single most common mismatch in home setups.
• Bar length against rack width. The bar must sit in the J-cups with the sleeves clear and room to load both sides.
• Bench height against rack J-cup range. A bench that is too tall or too short makes the rack’s hole spacing unusable for pressing.
• Attachment hole size against upright dimensions. Rack accessories are not universal, and this locks you into an ecosystem.
• Storage peg diameter against plate bore. Small, annoying, and easily overlooked.

A package resolves all five by construction. If you build piecemeal, these are the five things to check before every purchase, and checking them is not difficult — it is simply a step people skip.

The middle route most buyers do not know exists

Many retailers will build a custom bundle: the core items from a package at bundle pricing, without the accessories you do not want, and with a substitution where the standard package includes something unsuitable for your room. It is worth asking explicitly, because it is rarely advertised and it gets you most of the compatibility benefit without the filler.

If a retailer will not do it, that itself tells you something about how much of the package discount is real.

Related reading

• Start here: Cardio Machine Comparison by Space, Noise and Cost per Session
• Free Weights Against Machines for Home Training
• Home Equipment Against a Gym Membership Over Three Years
• Treadmill Against Exercise Bike for Home Use
• Building a Home Equipment Budget by Training Goal
• First Purchases for a Complete Beginner, and What Can Wait
• Browse all equipment categories
• Not sure where to start? Try the equipment recommendation tool

In a commercial gym the free weights against machines question is largely a training preference, because the gym has both and space is not your problem. At home the same question is decided by four practical factors, and they push fairly consistently in one direction.

The four factors that actually decide it

The case for free weights at home

For most home setups this is the stronger case, and the reasons are practical rather than ideological:

• Space efficiency. A bar, a set of plates, a bench and a rack cover all six movement patterns in an area smaller than a single multi-station machine.
• They do not become obsolete. Plates are the same in twenty years. There is no mechanism to fail, no upholstery to split and no cables to replace.
• Resale. If your circumstances change, plates and bars sell quickly and close to what you paid. A multi-station machine frequently does not sell at all, and cannot easily be removed from an upstairs room.
• Progression is granular. Small plates let you add tiny increments, which is what keeps progress going when the jumps on a machine stack are too large.
• Household adaptability. The same bar works for everyone at any load. A machine sized for one person may not adjust for another.

The case for machines at home

The case is narrower but it is real, and dismissing it is a mistake:

• Training alone without a spotter, particularly for pressing movements, where a machine removes the failure risk entirely.
• Beginners who find free weights intimidating and would otherwise not train at all. Equipment that gets used beats equipment that is theoretically superior.
• Rehabilitation and controlled movement, where a guided path is the point — and where it should be following advice from a clinician rather than a buying guide.
• Specific patterns free weights cover badly at home, most obviously the vertical pull. A lat pulldown does something a bar and plates cannot easily replicate without a fixed overhead point.
• Cable systems, which provide constant tension through a range of motion in a way free weights genuinely cannot.

The hybrid that most home gyms actually end up as

The setup that works for the largest number of people is not either extreme. It is a free-weight core — bar, plates, adjustable bench, rack with proper safeties — plus one cable or pulldown element to cover the vertical pull and provide constant-tension work.

That combination covers every movement pattern, keeps the load ceiling open, keeps depreciation low, and solves the one pattern free weights struggle with at home. It also arrives naturally if you buy in the sensible order, because the cable element is exactly the kind of purchase that makes sense once you know what your setup is missing.

The multi-station question

All-in-one multi-gyms are appealing because they look like a complete gym in one purchase. The honest assessment is that they cover several variations of a few movement patterns, occupy a large permanent footprint, have a fixed load ceiling, depreciate faster than anything else in the category, and are extremely difficult to move or resell.

They suit a specific buyer: someone who wants guided movement, will train alone, values low setup friction between exercises, and has the floor space. That is a legitimate description of plenty of people. It is simply not the default, and it is frequently bought as though it were.

Five questions that decide it

1. Will you train alone? If yes, budget for a proper safety system or accept guided equipment.
2. How much permanent floor space can you actually give up?
3. Where will your load ceiling be in two years?
4. How likely is it that you move house or change circumstances? This is a depreciation question.
5. Which movement pattern is your setup missing? It is usually vertical pull, and that is the one a machine element solves best.

The safety question, stated plainly

This is the part of the comparison that is not a preference. If you train alone at home — and most people do — then any lift you might fail under needs something to catch the load.

• Bench press is the specific risk. A failed rep with a loaded bar across the chest, alone, with nobody expected home, is the worst realistic scenario in a home gym. A rack with correctly set safety bars removes it. Nothing else does.
• Squats need the same provision, though failure is usually more escapable.
• Dumbbells are self-limiting in a way a barbell is not — you can put them down. This is a genuine argument for dumbbells in a setup with no rack.
• Machines catch the load by design, which is their strongest claim in a home setting and the reason they suit unsupervised use.

The practical conclusion: free weights are the better value and the better use of space, provided the safety system is bought as part of the package rather than deferred. If the budget will not stretch to a rack, dumbbells and a bench are a more sensible free-weight setup than a barbell without safeties.

What each route costs to own

Ownership costs diverge more than purchase prices suggest. Free weights have essentially no running cost, no mechanism to fail, no upholstery beyond the bench, and hold their value. Machines have cables, pulleys, guide rods and upholstery, all of which wear, and cable replacement is a specialist job on some designs. Before buying any machine, ask whether cables and pads are available as spares for that model — where they are not, the machine has a defined life.

Related reading

• Start here: Cardio Machine Comparison by Space, Noise and Cost per Session
• Complete Home Gym Packages Against Building Piece by Piece
• Home Equipment Against a Gym Membership Over Three Years
• Treadmill Against Exercise Bike for Home Use
• Equipment for Weight-Loss-Focused Training
• Building a Home Equipment Budget by Training Goal
• Browse all equipment categories
• Not sure where to start? Try the equipment recommendation tool

Rowers and cross trainers get compared because they occupy similar ground: low-impact, more muscle involvement than a bike, suitable for people who cannot or do not want to run. Beyond that they are quite different machines, and the difference that matters most is technique.

Side by side

The technique question, which decides most of it

Rowing done well is a leg-driven movement. The sequence is legs, then body swing, then arms, and the return is the reverse. Done badly — pulling primarily with the arms and rounding the lower back — it is both much less effective and a genuine source of back discomfort.

This is not a reason to avoid a rower. It is a reason to be honest about whether you will spend the first few sessions learning the movement. If you will, the rower gives more training per minute than anything else in the category. If you will not, a cross trainer delivers a decent session from the first minute with no instruction at all.

Where the rower wins

• Training per minute. More muscle involved, more work done, with a strong cardiovascular and muscular stimulus in the same session.
• Storage. Many models stand upright in a corner or separate into two pieces. A cross trainer does neither.
• Data quality. Power in watts and split times are derived from real measurements and are genuinely useful training targets.
• Upper-body pulling. A pattern most home setups are short of.

Where the cross trainer wins

• Accessibility. No technique to learn and very little that can be done wrong.
• Upright position. More comfortable for people with lower-back issues, and it allows reading or watching television, which for many people is what makes longer sessions happen at all.
• Consistency of effort. The guided path makes it easy to settle into a steady pace.
• Shared use. Anyone can step on and use it correctly without being shown.

The honest weaknesses

Each machine has a weakness that is usually glossed over.

• The rower’s is that a badly performed stroke is common, self-taught, and produces both poor training and lower-back discomfort. It also does not suit anyone who wants to be entertained while training.
• The cross trainer’s is that the machine carries a share of the movement and the displayed distance is a conversion from stride count rather than a measurement. It takes a large amount of permanent floor space for a machine that is, in muscular terms, doing less than a rower.

Choosing between them

1. Will you learn a technique? Honest yes points at the rower; honest no points at the cross trainer.
2. Does the room need to be recovered? Rower, if it stores upright — and check the ceiling height for that.
3. Any history of lower-back problems? This favours the cross trainer, and is worth raising with a clinician rather than working around.
4. Do you want to watch or read while training? Cross trainer.
5. Do you want the most training in the least time? Rower.
6. Is noise the binding constraint? Both can be quiet — but only if the rower is magnetic rather than air.

Space, in practice

This is where the two machines differ most and where the product pages help least.

• A rower is long but temporary. Commonly around two metres in use, with clearance needed at both ends — but many stand upright or split into two pieces, and the room comes back. Check the ceiling height needed when stored vertically; in a room with a standard ceiling this is the constraint people miss.
• A cross trainer is large and permanent. It does not meaningfully fold, it is heavy and awkward to move, and it needs clearance above and behind. Whatever floor area it takes, it takes for the life of the machine.

If the room has another purpose — a spare bedroom, a living room, anywhere shared — this single difference usually decides it, irrespective of which machine trains you better.

Getting them into the room

Both are awkward deliveries and they are awkward in different ways. A rower is long and rigid, so the problem is turning corners and stairwells; measure the diagonal at the tightest point. A cross trainer is heavy and bulky, usually assembled in the room it will live in, and frequently cannot be moved afterwards without dismantling. Confirm before ordering whether delivery is kerbside or into the room, and whether the machine comes apart again for a future house move.

Buying either second-hand

Both are reasonable used purchases with different checks. On a rower, sit and slide the full length of the rail listening for roughness, inspect the strap or chain, and check the console works and is replaceable. On a cross trainer, the wear points are the pedal arm bearings and the joints where the arms meet the frame — work it through a full stride at moderate resistance and listen for knocking, which is the fault most likely to be terminal and most likely to be described by a seller as “a slight noise”.

Related reading

• Start here: Cardio Machine Comparison by Space, Noise and Cost per Session
• Treadmill Against Exercise Bike for Home Use
• Free Weights Against Machines for Home Training
• Complete Home Gym Packages Against Building Piece by Piece
• Elliptical Trainers and Cross Trainers Compared
• Rowing Machine Footprint and Storage
• Browse all equipment categories
• Not sure where to start? Try the equipment recommendation tool

This is the most common comparison in home fitness, and it is frequently framed as a training question when it is really a housing question. Both machines will improve cardiovascular fitness. They differ enormously in what they demand of the room, the building and the people in it.

The practical differences, stated plainly

Where the treadmill genuinely wins

• Weight-bearing exercise. Walking and running load the skeleton in a way cycling does not. Where that is specifically the objective, a bike does not substitute.
• Specificity for runners. If you run outdoors and want to train through winter or in the dark, a treadmill trains the actual activity.
• Incline work. Controlled gradient is difficult to reproduce and is a genuine training tool.
• Zero learning curve. Everyone can walk. There is no setup to get right.

Where the bike genuinely wins

• Noise. This is the decisive factor for flats, upstairs rooms and evening training, and it is not close.
• Space. The smallest footprint of any cardio machine, with no run-off requirement.
• Joint loading. Non-weight-bearing and low-impact, which is why it is the default recommendation for sensitive knees, hips and ankles.
• Multitasking. Reading or watching something while cycling is straightforward. On a treadmill at anything above a walk it is not.
• Cost of ownership. Fewer consumables, less maintenance, no deck to wear out.
• Getting it into the room. Materially easier, which matters more than it sounds when the room is upstairs.

The decision, as a sequence

1. Is the machine going above ground floor, or is there anyone below you? If yes, the bike is strongly favoured and the treadmill needs a serious noise plan.
2. Do you specifically need weight-bearing exercise? If yes, the treadmill is the answer and the noise problem has to be solved rather than avoided.
3. Do you have joint sensitivity that running aggravates? If yes, the bike, or a cross trainer if you want more muscle involvement.
4. Does the room have another purpose? If yes, the bike is far easier to move aside.
5. Will you actually run, or will you walk? If walking is the honest answer and space is tight, a walking pad covers it in a fraction of the footprint.

The compromise options

Two middle routes are often overlooked:

• A walking pad or under-desk treadmill gives weight-bearing walking with a small footprint and much lower noise than a full treadmill. It will not support running, and the speed and duty-cycle limits are real, but for a buyer whose honest answer is “walking” it is the better-matched machine.
• A cross trainer is non-impact like a bike but involves more muscle and keeps you upright, which suits people who want more than cycling without the joint loading of running. It takes treadmill-sized space, which is the trade.

If you can only have one, and you are genuinely undecided

The bike is the lower-risk purchase for most households. It is quieter, smaller, cheaper to own, easier to move, kinder to joints and usable at more times of day — and the machine that can be used at more times of day is the machine that gets used. The treadmill is the better purchase when there is a specific reason for it, and those reasons are clear enough that if you have one, you already know what it is.

The costs that differ after purchase

The two machines diverge more in ownership than in price, and the gap widens over years.

None of this argues against a treadmill. It argues for including it in the comparison, because the cheaper machine to buy is not automatically the cheaper machine to own, and here it usually is not.

The two questions that settle it fastest

If you want to shortcut everything above, these two answers resolve the great majority of cases:

• Is there anyone living below the room? If yes, the bike, unless you have a specific need for weight-bearing exercise and a real plan for impact isolation.
• Will you genuinely run, or will you walk? If the honest answer is walking and space is tight, a walking pad does that job in a fraction of the footprint — and if the answer is running, the treadmill is worth the noise problem and you should budget to solve it properly.

If you have room for one and want to keep the option open

A point worth making for anyone genuinely torn. Cardio equipment is one of the better second-hand markets in home fitness, and bikes hold their value and sell quickly. Buying a bike first and adding or switching later is a low-risk sequence. Buying a treadmill first and discovering the noise is unworkable in a flat is a much more expensive discovery, because the machine is harder to move, harder to sell and has already annoyed the neighbours.

Related reading

• Start here: Cardio Machine Comparison by Space, Noise and Cost per Session
• Free Weights Against Machines for Home Training
• Complete Home Gym Packages Against Building Piece by Piece
• Home Equipment Against a Gym Membership Over Three Years
• Bike Fit on Home Exercise Bikes
• Mobility and Balance Equipment for Home Use
• Browse all equipment categories
• Not sure where to start? Try the equipment recommendation tool

Ask which cardio machine is best and the answer usually arrives in calories per hour. That is the weakest possible basis for the decision: the figures come from generic models rather than measurements, they differ between machine types for reasons unrelated to your effort, and they say nothing about whether you will still be using the machine in March.

Three things predict satisfaction far better, and all three are knowable in advance.

The five machines, compared on what matters

1. Space, measured properly

The published dimensions are the machine, not the requirement. Add clearance on the sides that matter: behind a treadmill for run-off, both ends of a rower, above and behind a cross trainer, and to the sides of an air bike for the moving arms.

The genuine differentiator is storage. A bike or a rower can frequently be moved or stood upright and the room recovered; a treadmill or cross trainer generally cannot, whatever the folding mechanism claims. If the room has another job, that difference outranks almost every performance specification.

2. Noise, which is what actually restricts use

Noise determines when you can train, and a machine you can only use when the house is empty gets used far less than one you can use at nine in the evening.

• Airborne noise is the machine itself — the fan on an air bike, the motor on a treadmill, the chain on a rower. Air resistance is the loudest by a wide margin and it is difficult to appreciate from a product page.
• Impact noise is footfall, and it is almost exclusive to treadmills. It travels through the structure rather than the air, which is why it reaches the flat below.
• Vibration is what neighbours actually complain about, and it responds well to mass, levelling and a proper mat.

If you are in a flat or the machine is going upstairs, a magnetic bike or magnetic rower is a materially different proposition from a treadmill or air bike, and no amount of build quality closes that gap.

3. Cost per session, not cost

The purchase price divided by the number of sessions you will actually do is the figure that matters, and it is dominated by the denominator. A cheaper machine used twice a week for four years costs far less per session than an excellent machine used for six weeks.

Which means the specification that most reduces cost per session is the one that makes you use it: comfort, fit, quiet operation and low setup friction. Those are the things to spend on.

Include the running costs too. Friction pads, water treatment, deck lubricant, belts and replacement parts are small individually and are the difference between a machine that lasts eight years and one that is replaced at four.

Matching machine to constraint

The comparison that is not on the list

Walking outdoors costs nothing, is weight-bearing, needs no space and has no noise constraint. It is a genuine competitor to a treadmill for a large number of buyers, and the honest reasons to prefer a machine are specific: darkness, weather, safety, childcare, or wanting controlled incline and pace. If none of those apply to your situation, that is worth knowing before spending.

This is not an argument against buying equipment. It is an argument for buying the machine that does something walking does not, rather than the machine that duplicates it at a cost.

How to shortlist without using calorie figures

1. Mark the in-use footprint plus clearance on the floor before shortlisting anything.
2. Establish your real noise constraint — the room below, the time of day, who else is home.
3. Ask which machine you would use on a wet Tuesday in November. Weight that answer heavily.
4. Check adjustment range against every intended user.
5. Add consumables and spare part availability to the comparison.
6. Ignore calorie figures entirely when comparing between machine types.

The machine that gets bought and the machine that gets used

Sales data and second-hand listings tell a fairly consistent story about this category. Treadmills and cross trainers are bought most and resold most; bikes are bought steadily and resold less; rowers divide sharply between people who learned the stroke and people who did not.

The pattern behind it is not quality. It is friction. The machines that survive in households are the ones that can be used without preparation, without waiting for the house to be empty, and without a decision about whether today is a proper session. That is worth more than any specification, and it is knowable in advance if you are honest with yourself about the room and the schedule.

Two machines, or one good one?

A common instinct is to buy two cheaper machines for variety. It is almost always worse than one better machine, for three reasons: the floor space doubles, the second machine gets used far less than imagined, and the money spread across two units buys a lower specification in each.

The exception is where the two machines do genuinely different jobs — a bike for steady sessions and a small resistance set for strength, say. That is not variety for its own sake, it is covering two different training goals, and it is a reasonable use of a budget.

Related reading

• Rowing Machine Against Cross Trainer
• Ski Ergometers and Upper-Body Cardio Machines
• Cardio Machine Choice for Joint-Friendly Training
• Browse all equipment categories
• Not sure where to start? Try the equipment recommendation tool