The question I get more than any other is whether to buy solar lights or run wired low-voltage landscape lighting. People want a simple answer, and the honest reply is that it depends on your yard, your climate, and how long you plan to stay in your house. The upfront cost story favors solar. The long-term reliability story favors low-voltage. The five-year total cost of ownership story is messier than either side claims, and that is what this article works through.
I installed both systems in my own yard and tracked every dollar and every hour for five years. One side of the house runs solar path lights, solar spotlights, and a solar floodlight. The other side runs a low-voltage system with a transformer, buried wire, and wired fixtures. Both illuminate roughly equivalent areas. I kept receipts, logged maintenance time, and counted dead fixtures. The result is a year-by-year cost breakdown that shows where each system actually spends your money.
What I Compared and the Assumptions Behind the Numbers
To make the comparison fair, I designed two lighting systems that cover equivalent territory. Each system lights a 60-foot run of pathway, uplights two trees, and illuminates a side entry. The solar system consists of twelve solar path lights, four solar spotlights, and one solar wall floodlight. The low-voltage system consists of twelve wired path lights, four wired spotlights, and one wired floodlight, all fed by a 150-watt transformer and roughly 120 feet of 12-gauge landscape wire.
I used mid-range fixtures for both systems, not bargain-bin and not premium. The solar fixtures averaged twelve dollars for path lights, twenty-five dollars for spotlights, and forty dollars for the floodlight. The low-voltage fixtures averaged eighteen dollars for path lights, thirty dollars for spotlights, and forty-five dollars for the floodlight. The low-voltage system also required a transformer (sixty dollars) and wire (fifty dollars for 120 feet), plus a few dollars in wire connectors and a stake for the transformer.
A few assumptions ground the numbers. Electricity is priced at the United States average of fifteen cents per kilowatt-hour. The low-voltage system runs an average of eight hours per night, controlled by a photocell timer, drawing roughly 90 watts actual load (the 150-watt transformer is oversized, which is standard practice to avoid running it at full capacity). The solar system gets an average of five peak sun hours per day, which is typical for the central United States. Both systems are installed by the homeowner, so there is no labor cost for installation. If you hire an electrician for the low-voltage transformer connection, add two to three hundred dollars, which would significantly change the year-one math.
One more assumption: I live in a temperate climate with real winters. Both systems see snow, ice, and short winter days. The solar system underperforms in December and January. This matters because the comparison is not just about cost, it is about whether the lights actually work when you need them.
Year One: Installation and Equipment Cost
Year one is where solar looks unbeatable. The solar system cost three hundred and fifty-four dollars in fixtures. That was it. I stuck the path lights in the ground, mounted the spotlights on stakes, and screwed the floodlight to the wall. Total installation time was about ninety minutes, most of which was deciding where to place things. No trenching, no wire, no transformer, no electrical connection.
The low-voltage system cost four hundred and ninety-one dollars in parts: two hundred and sixteen dollars for path lights, one hundred and twenty dollars for spotlights, forty-five dollars for the floodlight, sixty dollars for the transformer, and fifty dollars for wire and connectors. Installation took about six hours, including trenching a shallow 3-inch channel for the wire, laying and connecting the run, mounting the transformer, and wiring it into an existing outdoor outlet. The trenching was the time-consuming part. If you have rocky soil or established lawn you do not want to cut, add several more hours or rent a power trencher.
At the end of year one, solar is ahead by one hundred and thirty-seven dollars and about four and a half hours of labor. This is the comparison most people see, and it is why solar dominates the entry-level market. The problem is that year one is the best year for solar and the worst year for low-voltage. The cost curves cross later.
One caveat for year one: the solar system had two dead path lights within the first three months. One had a defective battery out of the box, and one failed after a heavy rain (water intrusion). I replaced both under what was effectively a no-hassle return, but it was a hint of the reliability gap to come.
The installation experience also revealed a flexibility advantage for solar that the dollar figures do not capture. When I wanted to move two path lights three feet to line up with a new garden edge, it took about thirty seconds per light. Pull it up, move it, push it back in. Moving a wired low-voltage path light requires digging up the cable, splicing in an extension, re-burying the wire, and reseating the fixture. The solar system let me iterate on the layout for the first month until I was happy with it. The low-voltage layout was locked in the moment I buried the wire, and changing it meant real work. If you are the kind of person who redesigns the garden every season, solar’s repositionability is worth real money that the cost table does not show.
There is also the question of where you can install. The low-voltage system was limited to a 120-foot wire run from the transformer because voltage drop over longer runs requires heavier (more expensive) wire or a second transformer. The solar system could go anywhere the sun reached, including the far back corner of the lot, 200 feet from the house, where running wire would have meant trenching across a lawn and a driveway. For remote fixtures, solar is not just cheaper, it is sometimes the only practical option.
Years Two Through Five: Electricity and Maintenance
Here is where the low-voltage system starts clawing back the cost difference. The low-voltage system uses electricity every night. At 90 watts for 8 hours per night, that is 0.72 kilowatt-hours per night, or roughly 263 kilowatt-hours per year. At fifteen cents per kilowatt-hour, the annual electricity cost is about thirty-nine dollars and fifty cents. Over five years, that is roughly one hundred and ninety-seven dollars in electricity.
The solar system uses zero grid electricity. That is the headline advantage, and it is real. Over five years, the solar system saved one hundred and ninety-seven dollars in power costs compared to low-voltage. But the maintenance costs tell a different story.
The solar system required constant attention. In year two, three path light batteries died and were replaced at two dollars each (six dollars total). One spotlight stopped working due to a corroded battery contact, which I cleaned and repaired (no cost, fifteen minutes). In year three, four more path light batteries died (eight dollars), one path light housing cracked and was replaced entirely (twelve dollars), and one spotlight panel delaminated and the fixture was replaced (twenty-five dollars). In year four, the remaining original path light batteries were all weak, so I replaced all twelve batteries at once (twenty-four dollars), and the floodlight battery died and was replaced (six dollars). In year five, two path lights failed entirely from water intrusion and were replaced (twenty-four dollars), and one spotlight switch failed (replaced, twenty-five dollars).
Total solar maintenance and replacement cost over years two through five: one hundred and thirty dollars in parts. Plus the initial two dead lights in year one that I replaced via return, valued at roughly twenty-four dollars if I had paid out of pocket.
The low-voltage system required almost no maintenance. In year two, I replaced one path light bulb (three dollars, the system uses replaceable LED lamps). In year three, a wire connector corroded and I replaced it (one dollar, ten minutes). In year four, a squirrel chewed through a wire run and I spliced it (two dollars in connectors, twenty minutes). In year five, two bulbs dimmed and were replaced (six dollars). Total low-voltage maintenance over years two through five: twelve dollars in parts.
This is the hidden cost of solar that the upfront comparison hides. Solar lights are consumable. The batteries die, the housings degrade, the electronics fail, and you are constantly replacing pieces. Low-voltage lights are infrastructure. The wire and transformer last decades, and the fixtures are repairable because they use standard replaceable lamps. Over five years, solar cost one hundred and thirty dollars to maintain while low-voltage cost twelve dollars.
Battery Replacement: The Solar Tax
Batteries deserve their own section because they are the single largest recurring cost in a solar lighting system, and they are the cost that surprises people. A solar light is only as good as its battery, and batteries are consumable.
Based on my cycle life testing (covered in a separate article), NiMH AAA cells in solar path lights last roughly 250 to 350 cycles in real-world conditions, which is one to two years depending on climate. In a hot climate, expect closer to one year. Lithium-ion cells in better fixtures last 400 to 500 cycles, roughly two years. If you want your solar lights to keep working, you are replacing batteries every one to two years.
For a twelve-light path light system using AAA NiMH cells, that is twelve batteries at about two dollars each, so roughly twenty-four dollars every two years, or about twelve dollars per year averaged. Over five years, that is roughly sixty dollars just in path light batteries, assuming you catch them before they leak and damage the fixtures (which they sometimes do). For the floodlight and spotlights using larger lithium cells, replacements cost five to eight dollars each and need replacing every two years, adding another twenty to thirty dollars over five years.
The battery replacement cost alone, roughly ninety dollars over five years for this system, eats most of the electricity savings that solar enjoys over low-voltage. When you add in the fixture replacements from housing and electronics failures, the solar maintenance cost exceeds the low-voltage electricity cost.
There is a strategy to reduce the battery tax: buy lights with replaceable, standard-size batteries and buy quality replacement cells. The worst value is sealed solar lights where you cannot replace the battery, which forces you to throw away the whole fixture when the cell dies. Always check whether the battery is accessible before buying.
A related tip is to buy replacement batteries in bulk from a reputable cell maker rather than one at a time from a retail rack. A four-pack of quality AAA NiMH cells costs about six dollars online, versus three to four dollars each at a hardware store. Over five years of replacing a dozen path light batteries every two years, buying in bulk cuts the battery cost from roughly sixty dollars to about twenty dollars, which materially changes the cost comparison. The same applies to 18650 lithium-ion cells, where bulk pricing from a known manufacturer is half the retail single-cell price. The catch is that you need to know which cell size your lights use before you buy, and you need to store the spares properly (cool, dry, at 40 percent charge) so they do not degrade on the shelf.
Another tactic is to standardize your lights on a single battery type. If all your solar lights use AAA NiMH cells, you buy one type of replacement and can move cells between lights as needed. A mix of AAA, AA, 18650, and pouch cells means you must stock four different replacements, which is expensive and wasteful. When shopping, favor lights that use common, standardized cell sizes over proprietary or sealed packs. Standardization also makes it easier to upgrade: if you discover that a higher-capacity AAA NiMH cell becomes available, you can swap it into all your lights at once.
Maintenance Hours Logged Over Five Years
Time is money, even if you do not bill yourself. I logged every minute I spent on each system over five years, because the labor difference is as significant as the dollar difference.
Solar system maintenance hours: year one, two hours (installation plus two returns). Year two, one and a half hours (replacing three batteries, cleaning a contact, repositioning two lights that had shifted). Year three, three hours (replacing four batteries, replacing a cracked housing, replacing a delaminated spotlight, cleaning several panels). Year four, two hours (replacing all path light batteries, replacing the floodlight battery, cleaning panels). Year five, two and a half hours (replacing two failed path lights, replacing a spotlight, winterizing). Total solar maintenance time over five years: roughly eleven hours.
Low-voltage system maintenance hours: year one, six hours (installation including trenching). Year two, fifteen minutes (replacing a bulb). Year three, fifteen minutes (replacing a connector). Year four, thirty minutes (splicing a chewed wire). Year five, twenty minutes (replacing two bulbs). Total low-voltage maintenance time over five years: roughly seven and a half hours.
Low-voltage required less total labor over five years despite the heavier installation, because once it is in the ground it mostly stays working. Solar required ongoing attention every year. If you value your weekend time at even twenty dollars an hour, the solar labor cost adds two hundred and twenty dollars over five years versus one hundred and fifty dollars for low-voltage. The gap widens if you hate crawling around the yard replacing batteries.
Total Cost of Ownership After Five Years
Here is the full five-year accounting. The table sums parts, electricity, and an estimated labor value at twenty dollars per hour for all maintenance and installation time.
| Cost Category | Solar System | Low-Voltage System |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 fixtures/parts | $354 | $491 |
| Year 1 labor (installation) | $30 (1.5 hrs) | $120 (6 hrs) |
| Years 2-5 electricity | $0 | $197 |
| Years 2-5 parts/maintenance | $130 | $12 |
| Years 2-5 labor | $180 (9 hrs) | $30 (1.5 hrs) |
| 5-Year Total (parts only) | $484 | $700 |
| 5-Year Total (with labor at $20/hr) | $694 | $850 |
By parts alone, solar is cheaper over five years: four hundred and eighty-four dollars versus seven hundred dollars, a savings of two hundred and sixteen dollars. When you add labor at a modest twenty dollars per hour, solar is still cheaper but the gap narrows to one hundred and fifty-six dollars. If you live in a hot climate where solar batteries and housings die faster, the gap narrows further or disappears. If you hire an electrician to install the low-voltage transformer (adding two to three hundred dollars), solar wins by a wider margin.
There is a cost the table does not capture: reliability and performance. Over the five years, the solar system had at least one light non-functional at any given time for roughly 40 percent of the period. The low-voltage system was essentially always working, with brief outages only when a bulb died or a wire was cut. The solar system also produced dim or no light for stretches of cloudy winter weather. The low-voltage system produced consistent light every night regardless of weather.
If you assign any value to reliability, the low-voltage system’s higher dollar cost buys something real: lights that work every night for five years. The solar system’s lower dollar cost comes with the inconvenience of periodic darkness and ongoing tinkering.
The reliability gap shows up most clearly in winter. During December and January, when my location gets only 4 hours of usable sun and the nights are 14 hours long, the solar system could not keep up. The path lights came on at dusk and died by 10 or 11 PM, leaving the walkway dark for the back half of the night. The low-voltage path lights ran their full 8-hour timer cycle every night regardless. For safety lighting on a walkway that gets used after 11 PM, the solar system was simply not adequate half the year. The spotlights and floodlight, with their larger panels and bigger batteries, fared better, but the path lights were unreliable for three to four months. This seasonal weakness is the solar system’s biggest functional limitation, and it is the reason I eventually added a small low-voltage run to supplement the path lights on the side of the house that gets winter foot traffic.
Cloudy stretches told a similar story. A week of overcast weather in any season left the solar lights dim or dead by the third or fourth day. The low-voltage system was unaffected by weather. If you live somewhere with frequent multi-day overcast periods, expect the solar system to have regular dark spells that the cost table cannot capture but that you will definitely notice.
Theft and damage were a minor factor I did not anticipate. Over five years, I lost two solar path lights to theft (they are easy to pull up and walk away with) and one to a lawnmower strike (a stake light I had not seated fully). The low-voltage lights, wired into the ground, were never stolen, and the buried cable protected them from mower damage. The replaceability of solar made theft and damage cheaper to fix, but it also made them more frequent.
When Solar Wins and When Low-Voltage Wins
After five years of running both, I have a clear sense of where each system makes sense.
Solar wins when your priority is low upfront cost, when you cannot or do not want to trench, when the installation is temporary (rental house, staging a home for sale), when the area is far from an outlet, or when you only need accent lighting that does not need to be reliable every single night. Solar is also the right choice if you move frequently, because you can take the lights with you. For a budget of under four hundred dollars and a willingness to replace batteries and fixtures periodically, solar delivers acceptable results.
Low-voltage wins when your priority is reliability, when you plan to stay in the house for five-plus years, when you need consistent light every night including winter, when you want minimal ongoing maintenance, or when you are lighting a large area where the number of solar fixtures needed would be expensive. Low-voltage also wins for any application where light quality and brightness matter, because wired fixtures can draw unlimited power and run brighter LEDs than a small solar panel and battery can support.
The hybrid approach is what I actually recommend for most homeowners. Use low-voltage for the lights that matter: the pathway you walk every night, the entry you need lit for safety, the spotlight on a feature you want to see reliably. Use solar for the lights that are decorative: the garden border, the remote corner of the yard, the spot where running wire is not worth it. This way you get reliability where you need it and low-cost flexibility where you do not.
In my own yard, the low-voltage side now carries the load for safety and security. The solar side remains for ambiance, and I have accepted that I will replace a few fixtures and batteries each year as the cost of not trenching across the whole property. Both systems have earned their place. The five-year accounting confirms that neither is universally cheaper, and the right choice depends on what you are willing to pay in dollars versus what you are willing to pay in time and reliability.
A final consideration is resale. When I sold my previous house, the buyer saw the low-voltage landscape lighting as a permanent improvement that added value, like an irrigation system or a built-in grill. The solar lights were viewed as personal property that I could take with me, and the buyer did not factor them into the offer. If you are improving a house you plan to sell, low-voltage lighting is a capital improvement that appraisers and buyers recognize. Solar lighting is portable and personal. This does not show up in the five-year cost table, but it matters if a move is in your plans.
The decision also depends on your tolerance for dealing with small electronics. If you are comfortable buying replacement batteries online, opening battery compartments, and occasionally soldering a wire, solar maintenance is manageable and cheap. If the idea of crawling around the yard with a screwdriver every few months sounds miserable, the low-voltage premium buys you freedom from that chore. Know yourself before you choose, because the maintenance burden of solar falls entirely on the homeowner, and there is no service plan that will come do it for you.
