Is a monitored alarm better than a bells-only alarm?

A monitored alarm produces a response when nobody is there to hear the siren, which is the situation most burglaries happen in — so for an empty property, monitoring is the meaningful upgrade. A bells-only alarm is cheaper, has no ongoing fee, and still deters, but nothing follows the noise.

The honest comparison is about what happens after activation. Both types make a noise and both deter opportunists. Only one of them results in a phone call or an attendance.

Bells-only makes sense if the property is rarely empty, if neighbours are close and reliable, or if the budget genuinely does not stretch to a monthly fee. It is much better than no alarm.

Monitoring makes sense if the property is regularly empty, if it is isolated enough that a siren goes unheard, if it holds high-value contents, or if an insurer requires it. It is also the only route to police attendance: no UK police force responds to a bells-only alarm as an alarm activation.

Note that monitoring is not a substitute for the basics. A monitored alarm on a house with an insecure back door is still a house with an insecure back door.