I’ve managed a few properties with those algae-resistant shingles—honestly, they slow things down a bit, but moss still finds a way. The only thing that really helped was more sunlight and regular sweeping, which isn’t always practical. Composite looks sharp, but for the price, I’d rather budget for annual cleaning and stick with asphalt. The ROI just isn’t there unless you’re after curb appeal or planning to stay put for decades.
Composite looks sharp, but for the price, I’d rather budget for annual cleaning and stick with asphalt.
I get where you’re coming from—composite is definitely a bigger upfront investment. I’m curious, though: has anyone noticed a difference in insurance premiums between the two? My agent hinted composite might get me a small break, but I’m not sure it’s enough to tip the scales.
I’ve managed a handful of properties with both composite and asphalt roofs, and honestly, the insurance angle hasn’t made a huge difference for us—at least not enough to offset the upfront cost of composite. One place I look after switched to composite after a nasty hailstorm, and our carrier did give us a small reduction in premiums, but it was maybe $60-70 a year. Over a 20-year period, sure, that adds up, but it’s still a drop in the bucket compared to the initial install price.
That said, I’ve noticed composite does seem to get fewer complaints from tenants about leaks or missing shingles after storms. Asphalt is cheaper, but you’re right, you have to stay on top of maintenance—especially if you’re in an area with lots of wind or big temperature swings. We had one building with asphalt that needed patching almost every spring, just from freeze-thaw cycles and the occasional branch coming down.
One thing that’s come up for us is resale value. Some buyers see composite as a plus, especially if it’s a newer install with a long warranty. But for rental properties, I usually stick with asphalt unless the owner specifically wants to upgrade. It’s just easier on the budget and doesn’t tie up as much capital.
If you’re in a spot where storms are frequent or you’re planning to hold onto the property for decades, composite might make sense. Otherwise, I’d say asphalt plus regular inspections and cleaning gets the job done for most folks. Just my two cents from what I’ve seen over the years...
You nailed a lot of what I see out there. Composite definitely cuts back on the “emergency” calls after a storm, which is a relief for anyone who’s had to scramble for a blue tarp on a Sunday morning. That said, I get where you’re coming from about the insurance savings being underwhelming. Folks sometimes expect their premiums to drop dramatically after an upgrade, but most carriers just aren’t that generous.
From what I’ve seen during inspections, composite tends to age better—less curling and granule loss, especially on roofs that get hammered by sun or hail. But yeah, it’s hard to ignore the sticker shock. I’ve walked properties where the owners went with asphalt just to keep their cash flow healthy, and as long as they’re proactive about maintenance (and don’t let moss or debris pile up), those roofs can do just fine for years.
One thing I’ll say is, resale value can be a wild card. Some buyers really do perk up when they hear “composite with a 40-year warranty,” especially if they’ve dealt with leaks before. Others just want to know the roof isn’t going to leak in the next five years and don’t care much beyond that. I’ve even seen buyers negotiate harder on price if they know an asphalt roof is nearing the end of its life, so it can swing both ways.
If you’re in a spot with wild weather—hail, high winds, big temperature swings—I lean toward composite, mostly for peace of mind. But if you’re in a milder area and you’re willing to keep an eye on things, asphalt is still a solid pick. No one wants surprise repairs, but sometimes the budget just won’t stretch for the “forever” roof.
Anyway, your take lines up with what I see out in the field. It’s all about balancing risk, budget, and how much hassle you’re willing to deal with down the line.
You summed it up pretty well. I’ve been on both sides—once paid for composite, another time stuck with asphalt because the budget just wasn’t there. Honestly, I didn’t see much difference in my insurance either way. Still, I’ll admit, not having to worry every time it storms is worth something. But yeah, that upfront cost stings.
