Land Rover vs Volvo: Depreciation Rate Gap

A 2022 Range Rover P400 SE loses roughly $52,000 in resale value over three years — nearly the starting price of a new Volvo XC60. That single comparison captures the core of the Land Rover versus Volvo depreciation story, and it has direct implications for any $150k+ household deciding between these two brands.

Key Figures at a Glance

Sources: Kelley Blue Book private party resale values (2025); MSRP figures from KBB model pages for 2022 MY base trims. Finluxy Depreciation Efficiency Score = (3-year market value ÷ MSRP) × 100.

The Depreciation Gap Is Wider Than the Price Gap

The Range Rover costs roughly twice what a base XC60 costs. Over three years, it loses roughly 2.3 times as much in dollar terms — $54,175 against $23,145. The percentage gap is 15 points: 56% cumulative depreciation for the Range Rover versus 41% for the XC60, per Kelley Blue Book data through 2025. The XC90, Volvo’s flagship luxury SUV, sits at just 35% cumulative depreciation over the same window.

This asymmetry is a structural feature of the luxury SUV market, not an anomaly. The iSeeCars annual study covering March 2024 through February 2025, analyzing over 800,000 five-year-old used vehicles, ranked the Range Rover 11th among the 25 worst-depreciating vehicles across all segments — at 62.9% five-year depreciation and an average dollar loss of $67,858. The Land Rover Discovery placed 18th at 60.9%. Volvo’s XC60, by contrast, appeared in the hybrid segment rankings at 57.4% — meaningful, but substantially better than Land Rover’s flagship.

To frame what 62.9% five-year depreciation means in practice: a buyer who paid the average Range Rover transaction price and sold at the five-year mark would lose more money to depreciation alone than many households earn in a year. For buyers who target the three-year depreciation sweet spot, the losses are still steep — but the gap between the brands narrows somewhat in percentage terms, as shown in the KBB three-year data above.

Finluxy Depreciation Efficiency Score: Brand vs. Brand

The Finluxy Depreciation Efficiency Score measures the percentage of original MSRP retained after exactly three years of ownership. A score above 70 signals strong retention; below 50 indicates rapid depreciation. Both Land Rover models analyzed here fall into that rapid-depreciation zone.

Finluxy Depreciation Efficiency Score = (3-year KBB private party value ÷ original base MSRP) × 100. Scale: above 70 = strong retention; below 50 = rapid depreciation. Sources: KBB (2025); manufacturer MSRP data.

On this metric, both brands score below 50 — meaning both fall into rapid-depreciation territory at the base trim level. The XC90 at 51.1 is the closest to the threshold, while the Range Rover at 42.7 is the furthest from it. The Land Rover brand gap versus Volvo — roughly 7 to 9 points on the Finluxy Depreciation Efficiency Score — is meaningful. For a $150k+ buyer deciding between a Range Rover and an XC90, that gap translates to a real cost difference in total cost of ownership, not just an abstract percentage.

Context matters here: even Volvo’s scores are mediocre by luxury car depreciation standards. For reference, the Porsche 911 scored a Finluxy Depreciation Efficiency Score of approximately 83 over a similar period, per Cluster Brief illustrative data. The 911 is the exception; both Land Rover and Volvo are the rule for most luxury SUVs.

Year-by-Year: How the Losses Stack Up

KBB’s annual depreciation data for the Range Rover Sport (2022 MY) illustrates how the losses are front-loaded rather than evenly distributed. In 2023, the first full year after purchase, the Sport lost $8,565 in resale value. By 2024, the annual drop accelerated to $18,307 — more than double — before easing to $10,910 in 2025. This pattern is typical of the first-year luxury car depreciation curve, where new vehicle supply and initial demand create a temporary cushion that erodes quickly.

The Range Rover Sport’s heaviest single-year loss came in year two rather than year one, which is somewhat unusual. The iSeeCars data suggests that reliability reputation and the 2022 model’s initial strong demand may have sustained first-year values temporarily. Whatever the cause, anyone who bought new and sold at the two-year mark absorbed almost as much total loss as a three-year holder — which is the practical argument for holding through year three rather than rotating early.

Volvo’s depreciation curve follows a more conventional trajectory. The XC60’s annual loss was roughly $5,397 per year averaged across the three-year window — consistent and predictable, which is actually useful for financial planning. Land Rover’s swings are larger, harder to model, and expose buyers to more timing risk.

Source: Kelley Blue Book depreciation data, 2022 Land Rover Range Rover Sport (2025). Annual depreciation reflects last 12-month private party resale value change per KBB methodology.

Why Land Rover Depreciates Faster: What the Data Actually Suggests

The short answer is that the used car market assigns a reliability discount to Land Rover that it doesn’t apply to Volvo. JD Power’s 2025 reliability data rated the Range Rover “Average” — not poor, but not strong enough to command a premium on the secondary market, particularly against competing luxury SUVs with better service records. The market is essentially pricing in the risk of ownership costs on a vehicle that Edmunds True Cost to Own data consistently places among the most expensive to maintain in its class.

Volvo’s position is different. The brand’s safety reputation and relatively straightforward powertrain architecture — particularly the B5 mild-hybrid in the XC60 — have produced fewer headline reliability issues. That perception filters through to used-car buyers who are willing to pay more for a three-year-old XC60 relative to its original price than they are for a three-year-old Discovery. It’s worth noting, though, that Volvo’s electric and plug-in hybrid models tell a very different story: the XC40 Recharge depreciated an average of 57% in the same period, per KBB data cited by CarBuzz (September 2025). The depreciation reality for plug-in hybrid luxury cars is considerably harsher than for their combustion and mild-hybrid counterparts.

Supply is also a factor. Land Rover sells at higher volumes than its desirability-to-supply ratio can sustain in the used market. Unlike the Porsche 911, where strong residual values are backed by constrained supply and consistent demand, the Range Rover faces competitive pressure from the Mercedes-Benz G-Class, Bentley Bentayga, and BMW X7 in the used luxury SUV segment — all of which become relatively more affordable as their prices drop. The Range Rover’s differentiation gets diluted.

The Five-Year Picture: Context From iSeeCars

Three-year data from KBB shows the comparison at a point most buyers care about — the typical lease cycle or first trade-in. The five-year data from iSeeCars extends the picture and, for Land Rover, it gets worse.

The iSeeCars study (March 2024–February 2025) placed the Range Rover at 62.9% five-year cumulative depreciation, with an average dollar loss of $67,858. That ranked it 11th worst among all vehicles analyzed — inside the top 25 worst depreciators across every segment, not just luxury SUVs. The Land Rover Discovery at 60.9% was only marginally better. For comparison, the overall industry average five-year depreciation rate in the same study was 45.6%. Land Rover’s flagship sits 17 percentage points above that average.

Volvo’s XC60 appeared in the study’s hybrid segment rankings at 57.4% five-year depreciation — still above the industry average, but meaningfully lower than either Land Rover model. Volvo’s combustion-engine models, particularly the XC90 in the non-hybrid configuration, have historically fared better still. For buyers thinking about five-year depreciation on $100k luxury vehicles, Land Rover’s position near the top of the worst-depreciating list is a data point that should weigh heavily in any purchase decision.

A separate note on the 2026 iSeeCars data (March 2025–February 2026, analyzing over 950,000 vehicles): the Range Rover’s five-year figure shifted to 61.7% — a slight improvement, which iSeeCars attributed to a broad rise in used car values across all segments in 2026. The trend is real but modest; the Range Rover remains in the bottom tier for residual value.

The Overlooked Data Point: Dollar Loss vs. Percentage

Most depreciation coverage focuses on percentage rates. The figure that actually determines how much wealth leaves a buyer’s balance sheet is the dollar loss — and that’s where the Range Rover’s profile becomes genuinely alarming for financially sophisticated buyers.

At 62.9% five-year depreciation, the Range Rover loses $67,858 on average, per iSeeCars. The BMW 7 Series, second-worst on the list, loses $65,249. The Mercedes-Benz S-Class, which many buyers consider the Range Rover’s prestige peer, loses $71,460 at 60.7% — a higher dollar amount despite a slightly lower percentage, reflecting its higher transaction price. By contrast, the Volvo XC60 at a similar age loses roughly $33,316 (iSeeCars 2025 study, hybrid segment). That’s a $34,000+ gap in absolute wealth destruction between the Range Rover and the XC60 over five years. For a ranking of which luxury SUVs depreciate fastest in dollar terms, Land Rover and Mercedes-Benz compete for the top spots.

What most coverage misses: the percentage metric is symmetric by definition, but the dollar exposure is not. A buyer who rotates vehicles every three years and chooses a Range Rover over a Volvo XC90 absorbs roughly $30,000 more in cumulative depreciation per cycle. Over two vehicle cycles — six years — that gap compounds to approximately $60,000 in additional cost, excluding financing. That’s a meaningful number even for households earning $150k+, where after-tax discretionary income is finite. Compared to, say, a BMW 7 Series depreciation curve, the Range Rover is in similar territory — which is useful framing for buyers benchmarking luxury sedans against SUVs.

Segment Comparison: Where Land Rover and Volvo Fit

Source: iSeeCars annual depreciation study, March 2024–February 2025, 800,000+ vehicles analyzed. Volvo XC60 figure from hybrid segment table. Rank reflects position on worst-depreciating vehicles list across all segments.

What This Means for $150k+ Buyers

Buyers in this income bracket typically have three ownership models: buy new and rotate every two to three years; buy new and hold five-plus years; or buy used at the point of steepest cumulative depreciation. The data points to very different strategies for Land Rover and Volvo buyers under each scenario.

For the two-to-three year rotator: the Range Rover’s year-two acceleration in depreciation — $18,307 in the second year alone for the Sport — is a significant risk. Buyers who intend to sell or trade at year two are absorbing the steepest part of the curve with limited recovery potential. The Volvo XC90’s more consistent annual losses make it better suited to short-cycle ownership. For the long-term holder (five-plus years): both brands converge toward poor residual value, but the Range Rover’s dollar losses at year five are nearly double those of the XC60. Holding does not rescue the Range Rover from its depreciation profile — it just spreads the pain. The case for buying used is actually strongest for Land Rover: as caredge.com noted, a 2022 Range Rover can be purchased for roughly 32% of its original price with 75% of its useful life remaining. That arithmetic works for used buyers, not new ones.

The German vs. Japanese luxury depreciation race has been well-documented, but the British brand comparison with Swedish rivals is less analyzed. What the data here shows clearly is that Volvo’s depreciation, while not exceptional, is structurally better than Land Rover’s at both the three-year and five-year marks — and the gap is large enough to matter in total cost of ownership calculations. Buyers who care about how mileage affects luxury car depreciation will find that high-mileage Land Rovers face an even steeper discount on the secondary market than high-mileage Volvos, compounding the brand-level gap. Color and specification choices matter at the margin too — the impact of color and options on resale value is real but secondary to the brand-level and model-level dynamics analyzed here.

The final practical consideration: if a $150k+ household is genuinely torn between these two brands based on the driving experience and brand appeal, the depreciation data should prompt them to factor in the net cost premium of the Land Rover choice. A new Range Rover Sport at $73,400 base will cost approximately $40,900 in cumulative depreciation over three years. A new Volvo XC90 at $49,900 base will cost roughly $24,400 over the same window. The Range Rover Sport’s net cost of ownership from depreciation alone is $16,500 higher over three years — before accounting for higher insurance premiums, financing costs on a larger loan, and the elevated maintenance expenses that Edmunds True Cost to Own methodology consistently assigns to Land Rover versus Volvo. Combined, those factors produce a total cost of ownership gap that can approach $25,000–$30,000 over three years. At $150k+ household income, that’s real capital that could be deployed elsewhere. Whether the Range Rover’s design, capability, and brand cachet are worth that premium is a question only the buyer can answer — but they should answer it knowing the full cost, not just the sticker.