Is it worth automating?
Every recurring chore eventually produces the thought: I should automate this. The thought is correct in shape and, more often than you’d guess, wrong in math. This calculator runs the math — the honest version, with the costs the automation daydream skips: the real count, the door-to-door minutes, the build, and the upkeep. Thirty seconds of inputs. One rule: counted numbers, not felt ones. The felt number runs high every single time, and the verdict is only as honest as the count behind it.
You’ll leave with a verdict, the annual cost of doing nothing, the payback math, and the one move that follows.
The numbers
Enter how often the task runs and how long each run takes, door to door — that’s the minimum for a verdict. Counted numbers, not felt ones.
Show the math
- Runs / year0 × 52 = 0
- Hours / year0 × 0 min ÷ 60 = 0
Runs/year assumes 52 weeks, 12 months, 4 quarters, or 1 year. Estimates run at 70% of the felt number; upkeep is budgeted at 15% of the build per year.
Questions about this calculator
How do you know if a task is worth automating?
Volume decides it first. The 100-times rule: a task run 100+ times a year is build-eligible, 10 to 99 times a year usually wants a written checklist instead, and under 10 times a year is cheaper to do by hand. Then the payback math checks the specific fix: a build is worth it when it pays back inside a year (or a tool saves at least twice its cost). This calculator runs both, on the honest count.
Is the calculator free and private?
Yes. It is completely free, needs no sign-up, and runs entirely in your browser — nothing you enter is sent anywhere or stored.
How is the calculation done?
Plain arithmetic, shown in full under “Show the math.” Runs-per-year normalises your frequency (52 weeks, 12 months, 4 quarters, or 1 year); annual hours come from runs times door-to-door minutes; annual cost multiplies by your hourly rate; payback divides the build cost by the monthly time saved. If you say you’re estimating rather than counting, the math runs at 70% of your number and says so. Upkeep is budgeted at 15% of the build per year. Same inputs always give the same result.
What are the possible verdicts?
Five: Build it (the volume and the payback both clear the bar); Build, cheaper (the volume justifies a fix but this particular build is overpriced); Checklist it (document the steps instead of automating); Do it by hand (too rare to justify any build); and Not yet — stabilize first (the process is still changing run to run, so automating it now would freeze the wrong version).
What if I don’t know my hourly value or costs?
Leave them blank. With just frequency and time-per-run you still get the hours at stake and a volume verdict from the 100-times rule. Add your hourly rate and what the fix would cost to get dollar figures and the payback math.