TextRanch

The best way to perfect your writing.

Discover why 1,062,726 users count on TextRanch to get their English corrected!

1. Input your text below.
2. Get it corrected in a few minutes by our editors.
3. Improve your English!

One of our experts will correct your English.

Our experts

the cost on vs the cost of

Both "the cost on" and "the cost of" are not comparable as they are used in different contexts. "The cost of" is the correct and commonly used phrase to indicate the amount of money needed for something, while "the cost on" is not a standard English construction.

Last updated: March 25, 2024 • 1008 views

the cost on

This is not a standard English construction.

This phrase is not commonly used in English. Instead, use "the cost of" to indicate the amount of money needed for something.

the cost of

This is the correct and commonly used phrase in English.

Use "the cost of" to indicate the amount of money needed for something. It is a standard and widely accepted phrase.
  • The overall weighted average stands at 4,33 % of the cost of production.
  • Eligible costs: the cost of training personnel to apply traceability systems
  • 40 % of the cost of introducing innovatory animal breeding techniques or practices on holdings.
  • Concerning the cost of production two phases were identified.
  • Such charges penalise consumers and increase the cost of transactions.
  • This appropriation also covers the cost of maintaining documentary software.
  • bringing down the cost of cross-border clearing and settlement;
  • Eligible expenditure covers the cost of certification.
  • Developments in the coal market also affect the cost of electricity for energy-intensive industries.
  • The Scottish Executive's economic advisors calculate that the cost of compliance with FMD quarantine restrictions amount to GBP 28500000.
  • the cost of renting premises for headquarters;
  • The best measure here is the cost of preventing CO2 emissions.
  • EUR 33915 intended to cover the cost of advising 30 holdings on optimising grassland management (EUR 1130,50 per holding).
  • EUR 34593 intended to cover the cost of advising 30 holdings on optimising grassland management (EUR 1153,10 per holding).
  • EUR 35285 intended to cover the cost of advising 30 holdings on optimising grassland management (EUR 1176,17 per holding).
  • A priori, the compensation received by Postbus corresponds exactly to the cost of its service.
  • New ECSC borrowings are restricted to refinancing with the aim to reduce the cost of funds.
  • Low investment in road infrastructure in rural and remote areas increases the cost of transport.
  • It also covers the cost of a daily allowance for hotel and incidental expenses.
  • This appropriation is intended to cover the cost of the institution's preparations for enlargement.

Related Comparisons

the expenditure for vs the expenditure on the best service in vs the best service on the effect on vs the effect of advise the budget on vs advise the budget for the roi on vs the roi of reduce the load on vs reduce the weight on

What Our Customers Are Saying

Our customers love us! We have an average rating of 4.79 stars based on 283,125 votes.
Also check out our 2,100+ reviews on TrustPilot (4.9TextRanch on TrustPilot).

Why choose TextRanch?

Lowest prices
Up to 50% lower than other online editing sites.

Fastest Times
Our team of editors is working for you 24/7.

Qualified Editors
Native English experts for UK or US English.

Top Customer Service
We are here to help. Satisfaction guaranteed!