AMORLINC
Supported, behaves as documentedCategory: Financial · Last tested 2026-09-01
Real compatibility results for the AMORLINC function: executed in Excel for the web, Google Sheets and LibreOffice Calc, with desktop Excel behavior from Microsoft’s official documentation (we do not run desktop Excel — Excel for the web is a different application and is executed separately). Syntax and links to that documentation are below.
Support matrix
| Engine | Documented | Live-tested | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|
| Excel (desktop) | Yes | No — documented only | n/a |
| Excel for the web | — | Yes (recalc, 2026-09-01) | Supported, behaves as documented |
| Google Sheets | Yes | Yes (Drive import, 2026-08-31) | Supported, behaves as documented |
| LibreOffice Calc | Yes | Yes (25.8.7.3, 2026-08-31) | Supported, behaves as documented |
LibreOffice version history
We executed the same test cases under each LibreOffice release to show exactly when AMORLINC’s support changed — not documentation claims, real results.
| LibreOffice version | Verdict | Tested |
|---|---|---|
| 24.2.0.3 | Supported, behaves as documented | 2026-08-31 |
| 24.8.7.2 | Supported, behaves as documented | 2026-08-31 |
| 25.2.0.3 | Supported, behaves as documented | 2026-08-31 |
| 25.8.7.3 | Supported, behaves as documented | 2026-08-31 |
Executed test cases
Excel for the web (executed 2026-09-01 via OneDrive recalculation)
These values come from Excel for the web, not from desktop Excel. They are two different implementations of the calculation engine, and this run measured only the web one: the corpus was uploaded to OneDrive as .xlsx, recalculated by Excel for the web on open, and downloaded again for readback. Excel for the web is a rolling service with no pinnable version, so the run is identified by its date. Where a value here disagrees with the Expected column — which is Microsoft’s documentation of the desktop product — we cannot tell you whether the web engine diverges from the desktop one or the documentation is wrong about both, because we do not run desktop Excel.
| Formula | Description | Result | Expected | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| =AMORLINC(A2,A3,A4,A5,A6,A7,A7) | Microsoft's documented worked example, transcribed verbatim including the page's own repeated A7 in the basis position | 360 | 360ProvenanceMicrosoft's page publishes this example's result as 360. The published formula passes A7 (0.15) rather than A8 (1) as basis -- an apparent typo on the page -- but a basis of 0.15 truncates to 0 (US 30/360) and the answer is unaffected, because AMORLINC depreciates a full accounting period linearly at cost*rate: 2400*0.15 = 360, with no day-count proration for period 1. Verified in Python; the basis only affects the prorated period 0 |
Matched |
| =AMORLINC(A2,A3,A4,A5,A6,A7,A8) | The same example with the basis argument corrected to A8 (actual basis), as the page's data table intends | 360 | 360ProvenanceSame documented result of 360. A full (non-prorated) accounting period depreciates cost*rate = 2400*0.15 = 360 under the documented linear method regardless of day-count basis, so correcting the page's A7/A8 typo must not change the answer -- this case and the verbatim one above are a paired check of exactly that |
Matched |
| =AMORLINC(A2,A3,A4,A5,2,A7,A8) | The second full accounting period of the same asset | 360 | 360ProvenanceExcel documents AMORLINC as straight-line depreciation with only the first (purchase) period prorated, so every subsequent full period depreciates the same cost*rate = 2400*0.15 = 360. Independently checked that period 2 is not near the end of the asset's life: accumulated depreciation through period 2 is about 131.8 + 360 + 360 = 851.8, well under cost - salvage = 2100, so no salvage clamping applies |
Matched |
| =AMORLINC(A2,A3,A4,A5,1,0.25,A8) | The same asset at a 25% rate, checking the linear cost*rate relationship directly | 600 | 600ProvenanceDerived from the documented straight-line method: a full period depreciates cost*rate = 2400*0.25 = 600. Accumulated depreciation through period 1 is about 219.7 + 600 = 819.7, under cost - salvage = 2100, so no salvage clamping applies |
Matched |
Google Sheets (executed 2026-08-31 via Drive import)
Google Sheets is a rolling service with no pinnable version, so this run is identified by its date. The corpus was imported to Drive as .xlsx, recalculated by Sheets, and exported back for readback.
| Formula | Description | Result | Expected | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| =AMORLINC(A2,A3,A4,A5,A6,A7,A7) | Microsoft's documented worked example, transcribed verbatim including the page's own repeated A7 in the basis position | 360 | 360ProvenanceMicrosoft's page publishes this example's result as 360. The published formula passes A7 (0.15) rather than A8 (1) as basis -- an apparent typo on the page -- but a basis of 0.15 truncates to 0 (US 30/360) and the answer is unaffected, because AMORLINC depreciates a full accounting period linearly at cost*rate: 2400*0.15 = 360, with no day-count proration for period 1. Verified in Python; the basis only affects the prorated period 0 |
Matched |
| =AMORLINC(A2,A3,A4,A5,A6,A7,A8) | The same example with the basis argument corrected to A8 (actual basis), as the page's data table intends | 360 | 360ProvenanceSame documented result of 360. A full (non-prorated) accounting period depreciates cost*rate = 2400*0.15 = 360 under the documented linear method regardless of day-count basis, so correcting the page's A7/A8 typo must not change the answer -- this case and the verbatim one above are a paired check of exactly that |
Matched |
| =AMORLINC(A2,A3,A4,A5,2,A7,A8) | The second full accounting period of the same asset | 360 | 360ProvenanceExcel documents AMORLINC as straight-line depreciation with only the first (purchase) period prorated, so every subsequent full period depreciates the same cost*rate = 2400*0.15 = 360. Independently checked that period 2 is not near the end of the asset's life: accumulated depreciation through period 2 is about 131.8 + 360 + 360 = 851.8, well under cost - salvage = 2100, so no salvage clamping applies |
Matched |
| =AMORLINC(A2,A3,A4,A5,1,0.25,A8) | The same asset at a 25% rate, checking the linear cost*rate relationship directly | 600 | 600ProvenanceDerived from the documented straight-line method: a full period depreciates cost*rate = 2400*0.25 = 600. Accumulated depreciation through period 1 is about 219.7 + 600 = 819.7, under cost - salvage = 2100, so no salvage clamping applies |
Matched |
LibreOffice Calc 25.8.7.3 (tested 2026-08-31)
| Formula | Description | Result | Expected | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| =AMORLINC(A2,A3,A4,A5,A6,A7,A7) | Microsoft's documented worked example, transcribed verbatim including the page's own repeated A7 in the basis position | 360 | 360ProvenanceMicrosoft's page publishes this example's result as 360. The published formula passes A7 (0.15) rather than A8 (1) as basis -- an apparent typo on the page -- but a basis of 0.15 truncates to 0 (US 30/360) and the answer is unaffected, because AMORLINC depreciates a full accounting period linearly at cost*rate: 2400*0.15 = 360, with no day-count proration for period 1. Verified in Python; the basis only affects the prorated period 0 |
Matched |
| =AMORLINC(A2,A3,A4,A5,A6,A7,A8) | The same example with the basis argument corrected to A8 (actual basis), as the page's data table intends | 360 | 360ProvenanceSame documented result of 360. A full (non-prorated) accounting period depreciates cost*rate = 2400*0.15 = 360 under the documented linear method regardless of day-count basis, so correcting the page's A7/A8 typo must not change the answer -- this case and the verbatim one above are a paired check of exactly that |
Matched |
| =AMORLINC(A2,A3,A4,A5,2,A7,A8) | The second full accounting period of the same asset | 360 | 360ProvenanceExcel documents AMORLINC as straight-line depreciation with only the first (purchase) period prorated, so every subsequent full period depreciates the same cost*rate = 2400*0.15 = 360. Independently checked that period 2 is not near the end of the asset's life: accumulated depreciation through period 2 is about 131.8 + 360 + 360 = 851.8, well under cost - salvage = 2100, so no salvage clamping applies |
Matched |
| =AMORLINC(A2,A3,A4,A5,1,0.25,A8) | The same asset at a 25% rate, checking the linear cost*rate relationship directly | 600 | 600ProvenanceDerived from the documented straight-line method: a full period depreciates cost*rate = 2400*0.25 = 600. Accumulated depreciation through period 1 is about 219.7 + 600 = 819.7, under cost - salvage = 2100, so no salvage clamping applies |
Matched |
Docs & syntax
- Excel (desktop): official documentation
- Google Sheets: official documentation
- LibreOffice Calc: official documentation
Where AMORLINC behaves differently
- When the documentation is wrong: 29 vendor doc defects found by execution
Independent derivation across 586 executed functions found 29 places where a vendor's own page is contradicted by its own inputs, its own table, or the live engine: 23 Microsoft, 5 Google, 1 LibreOffice. Includes T.INV.2T's doubly-wrong Remark, DISC's stale figure, ISDATE's page against the live engine, and RAWSUBTRACT's help against LibreOffice's own result.