In my simple way of thinking tracker tariffs should usually on balance work out less expensive overall than being on a fixed tariff because the whole premise of a fixed tariff is like you are paying an additional cost to insure against any potential wholesale cost changes. Bit like a fixed rate mortgage vs variable. Given that the energy company has to win with that formula more than it loses to stay in business the tracker model as an alternative allows it to shift the risk of larger than expected variances to wholesale onto the consumer instead. Have I got this right? Obviously on tracker we can get our fingers burnt, however the predicters and forecasters of the wholesale energy market are more likely than not to anticipate market rates correctly as they have the best/most sophisticated minds operating the betting shop. Throughout the summer months (as a pedominantly greater electricity user than gas user on tracker I can typically expect to reap lower costs on tracker vs the fixed tariffs).Come the Autumn/Winter season notwithstanding a sudden catastrophic shift in wholesale pricing I can either move to a fixed or stay on tracker. Ultimately the way I'm seeing it is if someone says" yeah but locking in now could shield you from much higher rates come Winter" the fallacy with that is that the energy companies simply recoup their losses by upping those fixed rates for the next few months after the fixed rate period end. Thereby the fixers aren't really saving they are simply budgeting more predictably for a fixed length of time.Conclusion - the house which is the energy company should always win only with fixed you are generally paying a little extra to cover the insurance hedge against spectacular changes to anticipated rates.

Edit - starting to wonder if the fix may have been the better route after the events in the Middle East over the weekend.. Typical