Lender Credit or Seller Concession: Which Saves More?

I’m comparing two ways to reduce the cash needed at closing on a $300,000 mortgage:

- **Lender credit:** Accept a 6.75% rate instead of 6.375% and receive about $6,000 toward eligible closing costs.
- **Seller-paid closing costs:** Keep the 6.375% rate and negotiate a $6,000 seller concession, assuming the seller agrees and the loan program allows that amount.

The lender credit seems more predictable, but the higher rate would increase the payment and total interest for as long as I keep the loan. The seller concession preserves the lower rate, though it depends on the purchase contract, appraisal, and the applicable contribution limits. It also can’t usually be used for the down payment or cash back beyond eligible costs.

My rough plan is to stay in the home at least seven years, but I don’t want to drain my reserves just to keep the lower rate. I’m trying to compare:

1. The monthly payment difference between 6.375% and 6.75% on $300,000.
2. The break-even point if refinancing or selling happens earlier than expected.
3. Whether the seller concession is actually permitted for the loan type and occupancy.
4. How much cash should remain after closing for repairs and other home expenses.

For buyers who’ve run these numbers, did you prioritize preserving cash reserves or minimizing the long-term interest cost? Also, are there situations where a lender credit made more sense even when a seller concession was theoretically available?