Yes, FHA is a genuinely good program when it's the right fit, and the only way to know is to run it against conventional side by side. Opinions are wildly polarized (some people say never touch it, others swear by it), but FHA has stood the test of time and held up well through the last downturn. Where FHA shines: lower credit scores, since FHA pricing gets more forgiving as scores drop, and files that need more debt-to-income flexibility than conventional allows. The cost structure is where FHA gets misjudged. On top of monthly mortgage insurance, FHA charges an upfront premium, 1.75% of the base loan amount under the current schedule, which most buyers finance into the balance (paying it in cash at closing is also allowed). That matters most on a minimal-down loan. Put 3% down conventional and you start with about 3% equity. Put 3.5% down FHA and finance the upfront premium, and you start closer to 1.75%. With little down, that cushion is worth protecting, which argues for a longer horizon before you sell. Josh's rule: if you qualify for both and the payment is the same, take conventional. But the two are rarely identical. We have run well-qualified couples who assumed they needed FHA, only to find a 3% down conventional carried a slightly higher rate but meaningfully lower mortgage insurance, producing both lower cash to close and a lower monthly payment. The side-by-side settles it, and sometimes it settles it the other way. Two more wrinkles worth knowing: - Market conditions. Sellers give FHA offers more serious consideration in a slower market with ample inventory than in a bidding war, where some pass them over. - The anti-flipping rule. A home resold 90 days or fewer after the seller's own purchase is not eligible for FHA financing, and a quick resale at a big markup can trigger a second appraisal. If you want the two loans modeled against your actual numbers, that is the free Roadmap conversation (about 20 minutes) where we run your real numbers.