Equipment purchasing decisions often feel like something tactical. To most people (like scientists or lab managers), buying equipment might seem like another routine task: comparing specs, getting quotes, ordering what's needed. It’s viewed as a short-term, execution-level decision
But for CFOs, they’re strategic. From their point of view, equipment purchases impact the company’s cash flow, burn rate, capital allocation, tax treatment, financing strategy, and even risk exposure. These are long-term, high-level decisions
That's because buying lab equipment outright can burn through capital fast—especially when teams need high-end instruments just to get started. But leasing can be a great financing option that offers a smarter, more flexible way to get what you need without overcommitting cash. Still, leasing isn’t always part of the default playbook. Some finance teams see it as a last resort. Others aren’t sure how it compares to capital purchases over time.
In reality, leasing is a tool—one that can help you manage burn, reduce risk, and keep your lab moving during uncertain or critical phases.
This quick guide is for CFOs, finance teams, and biotech leaders thinking about how to fund lab infrastructure more strategically. We’ll look at when leasing makes sense, how to evaluate the tradeoffs, and what it takes to make it work well alongside your broader capital plan.
Most startups are built to move fast—but the nature of a biotech company, and the lab infrastructure required, doesn’t always cooperate or lend itself to the same fast pace. Whether you're building a platform company or pushing a lead asset forward, the cost of getting the right equipment in place can eat through cash reserves faster than expected.
Buying high-end lab instruments outright can tie up hundreds of thousands of dollars in a single transaction—capital that could otherwise fund R&D, extend payroll, or bridge to the next milestone. For many biotech CFOs, that tradeoff becomes unsustainable, especially early in the company’s life.
Leasing companies offer a different approach. By leasing with someone like Excedr, labs can gain access to critical equipment without the full upfront hit. Your payments are spread over time, typically 24 to 60 months, which allows you to align spend with actual usage and scientific progress.
This can make a meaningful difference when:
It’s not about avoiding cost—it’s about timing it better. Leasing gives finance teams a way to support science without overextending the balance sheet or forcing premature infrastructure bets.
Scientific momentum often peaks when budgets are least flexible.
You might be prepping for a board meeting, closing a Series A, or expanding a new site. The science is ready to move, but the capex budget isn’t. Even with approval, procurement timelines and internal reviews can create delays that labs can’t afford.
This is where leasing steps in—not as a shortcut, but as a bridge.
Rather than deferring key equipment purchases or asking teams to make do with overextended systems, leasing allows you to deploy what’s needed now and pay for it over time. It smooths capital outlay and protects operational continuity, especially during pressure points.
Teams often turn to leasing when:
Think of it as a way to relieve short-term strain without compromising long-term discipline.
In biotech, plans change fast. A lead program might stall in preclinical. A promising indication might get deprioritized. Teams grow, contract, relocate. And suddenly, the equipment you bought to support one workflow is collecting dust in the corner—or worse, blocking budget for something new.
That’s where leasing offers real strategic value: it gives you options.
Instead of locking capital into fixed assets, leasing lets you commit to equipment for the timeframe you expect to need it—typically 24 to 60 months—with the flexibility to return, renew, or upgrade at the end. You’re not stuck making a long-term infrastructure bet on short-term needs.
This matters most when:
Let’s say you invest in a $250K analytical system to support a lead program. If that program stalls, you now own a high-cost tool you can’t easily redeploy, and your capital is tied up. But if you lease that system instead, and the program changes direction, you’ve preserved both liquidity and decision-making flexibility—without taking a loss.
This kind of optionality can be the difference between absorbing a pivot or getting caught in the sunk-cost trap.
Not all leases function the same—and understanding the differences can save your finance team from surprises down the line.
In biotech, most equipment leases fall into two categories: operating leases and finance leases (sometimes called capital leases). Both provide access to high-value equipment, but how they’re structured—and how they show up on your balance sheet—differs significantly.
This is the more flexible option. You make regular payments over a defined period (lease terms are typically 24–60 months), and at the end, you return the equipment, extend the lease, or negotiate a buyout. Under current accounting standards (ASC 842), operating leases appear on the balance sheet as a right-of-use (ROU) asset and a lease liability, but the expense is typically spread evenly across the term.
These are best suited for:
This structure functions more like a loan. The lessee assumes most of the economic benefits and risks of ownership, and the asset is treated similarly to a purchase. It shows up as a capital asset and liability, and you depreciate it over time. This can make sense for long-term infrastructure or core platforms with a clear and stable use case.
These are often used when:
While accounting rules now bring most leases onto the balance sheet either way, the classification still impacts depreciation, expense recognition, and financial ratios—especially during audits, fundraising, or financial modeling.
Understanding how each type fits into your broader capital strategy is key. A lease might look favorable on paper, but if it ties up credit lines or complicates your next raise, the structure may need to be re-evaluated.
Leasing isn’t always the right choice—but there are specific moments when it offers clear advantages over purchasing outright.
One of the clearest signals is uncertainty—whether that’s about your program, your team, or your timeline. If you're unsure how long a piece of equipment will be needed, or whether a workflow will scale as planned, leasing can offer flexibility without locking you into an asset you may not want to keep.
It can also be the better option when:
That said, buying still makes sense in some cases—especially for stable, long-life equipment that will serve your core workflows for years to come. Some CFOs choose to blend the two: buy foundational assets, lease everything tied to speed, flexibility, or program-specific needs.
The point isn’t to lease everything—it’s to recognize where leasing provides leverage.
Leasing works best when it’s not an afterthought. When treated as part of your capital deployment plan—not a workaround for budget constraints—it becomes a lever: one that gives you more control over cash flow, timeline alignment, and operational agility.
The most strategic finance teams don’t ask, “Should we lease or buy?” in isolation. Instead, they ask:
Leasing is rarely about saving money in absolute terms. It's about creating financial structures that match the real dynamics of biotechnology—timelines that shift, programs that pivot, and teams that grow in sprints.
At Excedr, we work with biotech startup finance teams to make those tradeoffs clearer—and more actionable. Whether you’re expanding infrastructure, scaling programs, or just rethinking how you structure capex, leasing can help your equipment procurement strategy.
Get in touch to learn more about tap our equipment financing model, and get the cutting-edge tools you need to advance your scientific research.