An analysis of Turo's own published earnings figures — where the $634/month average comes from, what its data window excludes, and the break-even math hidden in the 2026 earnings plans.
Turo publishes a surprising amount about host economics, mostly in footnotes nobody reads. Working through those footnotes produces some conclusions that contradict how the numbers are usually quoted — including a break-even threshold, buried in the 2026 earnings plans, that decides which plan actually pays.
Everything here comes from Turo’s own published material. No internal data, no estimates.
Turo advertises that owners in its Passive Income Hosting program “could net an average of $634/month for each car you share.” The derivation is stated:
That much is straightforward. The scope is where it gets interesting.
Turo’s footnote defines the population precisely:
| Constraint | Value |
|---|---|
| Data window | 1 January 2020 – 30 June 2023 |
| Geography | US, market areas with ≥3 distinct vehicles |
| Vehicle value | $10,000 – $100,000 |
| Model years | 2018 – 2024 |
| ”National average” | Mean across Turo’s top 18 US markets by gross net revenue |
Four consequences follow, none of which appear when the number is quoted:
The window closed over three years ago. Every figure comes from a period ending mid-2023 that also spans pandemic-era travel distortion — an extraordinary collapse followed by an extraordinary rebound. That’s not a criticism of the disclosure, which is explicit. It’s a caution against reading it as current.
It’s a top-18-market number. Turo reports “US Other” separately for everywhere outside those 18 markets. Quoting the national average outside a major metro imports an assumption that probably doesn’t hold.
The value band excludes both ends. Nothing under $10,000 or over $100,000 is in the average. Two of the most discussed strategies — cheap cash cars and exotics — are definitionally outside the population the figure describes.
It’s trip price, not profit. The 70% arrives before the owner’s own costs: financing, insurance, registration, depreciation. A $634 gross share on a car with a $420 note is not $634 of income.
None of this makes the figure dishonest. It makes it a starting point for your own model rather than a forecast — which is exactly how it is almost never used.
On 7 January 2026, Turo replaced its previous five-tier lineup with three earnings plans:
| Plan | Host share of trip price | Damage responsibility per claim |
|---|---|---|
| More peace of mind | 70% | $250 |
| Balanced | 80% | $1,500 |
| More earnings | 90% | $2,750 |
Look at the steps rather than the levels:
The ladder is perfectly linear. Every rung buys exactly 10 points of revenue for exactly $1,250 of additional per-claim exposure. Whether or not that’s deliberate, it means the choice between plans reduces to a single question with an arithmetic answer.
Ten points of trip price is a known annual amount. $1,250 is a known per-claim amount. Setting them equal gives the claim frequency at which a step up the ladder stops paying:
Break-even claims per year = (0.10 × annual gross trip price) ÷ $1,250
Below that frequency, the higher-share plan wins. Above it, the lower-share plan with smaller damage responsibility wins.
Run it against Turo’s own published average and a few realistic vehicles:
| Monthly gross trip price | Annual gross | Value of 10 points | Break-even claims/year |
|---|---|---|---|
| $906 (Turo’s published average) | $10,872 | $1,087 | 0.87 |
| $1,250 | $15,000 | $1,500 | 1.20 |
| $2,000 | $24,000 | $2,400 | 1.92 |
| $3,000 | $36,000 | $3,600 | 2.88 |
For a vehicle earning at Turo’s own published average, stepping up a plan pays only if it averages fewer than about 0.87 claims per year — roughly one claim every fourteen months. Any more often and the extra 10 points is being handed straight back.
Two things fall out of this that are worth more than the general advice usually offered:
Low-earning vehicles belong on lower-share plans. The intuition runs the other way — a car that isn’t earning much feels like it needs every point it can get. The math says the opposite: a small revenue base makes 10 points worth little while the $1,250 exposure stays fixed.
High-earning vehicles can absorb real claim frequency. A $3,000/month car tolerates nearly three claims a year before More earnings stops beating Balanced. Confident, high-utilization vehicles genuinely should sit at the top of the ladder.
And a corollary: one plan across a mixed fleet will usually misprice some cars. The break-even moves with each vehicle’s revenue, so a uniform plan tends to be mispriced on some cars in both directions.
Partially, and only for one plan in nine markets so far.
Turo officially renamed “protection plans” to “earnings plans” starting March 31, 2026 — “deductible” became “damage responsibility” and “host take” became “host share.” That’s a terminology change; the 70/80/90% shares and $250/$1,500/$2,750 damage responsibility figures used throughout this page are unchanged by it.
What did change: in Austin, Dallas, Detroit, Las Vegas, Maui, Philadelphia, Phoenix, San Diego, and Seattle, the More earnings plan now pays up to 100% of trip price — not the flat 90% — on trips booked 28+ days in advance. Turo frames this as sharing more of the profit from lower-risk, more predictable advance bookings. More markets are expected to follow through the rest of 2026.
This doesn’t change the break-even formula above, but it does change one of its inputs for a specific slice of vehicles. The formula assumes a flat 90% share for More earnings. A vehicle in one of the nine markets that books mostly 28+ days out is earning something between 90% and 100% depending on its lead time mix — Turo hasn’t published the exact curve between those two points, so there’s no honest way to build a precise revised break-even number from public information yet. What can be said directionally: the real share on that plan, for that vehicle, is higher than 90%, which means the break-even claim frequency in the table above is understated for it — the true number that plan can absorb before Balanced wins is somewhat higher than shown.
Practically: if a co-hosted vehicle sits in one of those nine markets and its owner or operator can influence how far in advance it gets booked, that’s now a genuine lever on which plan pays — one the flat-share model above doesn’t capture until Turo publishes more detail.
The formula needs one input most operators don’t have: claims per year, per vehicle.
Not fleet-wide. Per vehicle — because that’s the level the plan is chosen at. Which makes plan selection a downstream consequence of whether your bookkeeping attributes claims to specific cars, or just records them as costs.
An operator who can answer “how many claims has this VIN had in 24 months, and what did each cost me after reimbursement?” can price plan selection exactly. One who can’t is guessing on a decision worth roughly $1,087 a year per vehicle at Turo’s own average — and considerably more on better cars.
How to get to that number is in how to track per-vehicle profit, and the claim mechanics that produce it are in Turo damage claims.
Turo’s published figures are accurately reported and narrowly scoped. The $634 average is real for the population it describes and misleading everywhere else — not because Turo hid the caveats, but because almost nobody reads footnotes.
The 2026 plan ladder is more interesting than the earnings average, and far less discussed. It converts a question that gets argued about in forums into one with an arithmetic answer, provided you know your own claim history at the vehicle level.
That proviso is doing most of the work, and it’s the part no marketplace will compute for you.
For how these figures land in a co-hosting arrangement — where the plan choice changes both sides’ economics — see the co-hosting guide and co-host splits.
It is 70% of $906, and $906 is the monthly equivalent of $10,868 in average annual earnings per car. That average covers US vehicles between January 2020 and June 2023, valued $10,000 to $100,000, model years 2018 to 2024, in market areas with at least three distinct vehicles.
It depends on claim frequency, not on the share percentage. Each step up the ladder trades 10 points of trip price for $1,250 more damage responsibility per claim, so a higher share only pays if the vehicle averages fewer claims per year than roughly one-tenth of its annual gross divided by $1,250.
It is accurately reported and narrowly scoped. It is a historical average across Turo's top 18 US markets from a data window ending mid-2023, restricted by vehicle value and model year, and it describes trip price rather than profit — so it is a starting point for your own modeling, not a forecast.
The 70/80/90% shares and their damage responsibility amounts have applied since January 7, 2026. What changed on March 31, 2026 was the name — "protection plans" became "earnings plans" — plus a new feature: the More earnings plan now pays up to 100% of trip price, not a flat 90%, on trips booked 28+ days in advance, in nine markets so far.
Turo uses "co-host" to mean two completely different things, and conflating them costs owners and operators real money. Here's how the programs differ, what each split actually pays, and what you need in place to run this as a business.
Owner statements are where co-hosting relationships break. Here's every line a statement needs, the discrepancies that trigger disputes, and how to make the numbers agree.
FleetPilot turns your Turo, direct rental, and vehicle expense data into a seamless end-of-month owner payout process.
Start free