Reactive maintenance is typically more expensive than preventive maintenance by which comparison?

• A. Reactive maintenance tends to be 3-5 times more expensive than preventive
• B. Preventive maintenance is more expensive than reactive
• C. They cost about the same
• D. Reactive maintenance is always cheaper in the long run

Answer: (A)

When equipment is kept running until it fails, the costs pile up from downtime, emergency repairs, overtime, expedited parts, and potential collateral damage to other components or processes. Scheduling maintenance to prevent failures adds upfront costs for inspections, lubrication, and planned part replacements, but it avoids the big hit from unexpected breakdowns. Because downtime and urgent repairs dramatically increase total expenses, reactive maintenance typically costs about three to five times more than preventive maintenance. That’s why this option is the best fit: it reflects the common industry insight that preventing failures saves money overall, even if preventive work seems cheaper at a glance.

The other ideas don’t align with real-world cost patterns: preventive maintenance isn’t usually more expensive than reactive; the costs aren’t generally the same; and reactive isn’t always cheaper in the long run due to the hidden costs of downtime and emergencies.