Curated market comparison

CharlotteGreenville

Southeastern alternatives that separate scale from gross yield, entry price, migration and climate exposure.

Charlotte, NC market pageGreenville, SC market page
Charlotte, NC cityscape
Greenville, SC cityscape
Quick answer

Choose by objective, not by one blended winner

These are the published fit calls from the verified decision memo. Use the full evidence below to decide whether the trade-off matches your property plan.

CharlotteSupply discipline
GreenvilleCash flow · Affordability · Climate risk
Deal-dependentEmployment
Take the five-question market-fit quiz
Decision memo

The trade-off, before the charts

Figure-checked analysis generated from only these two published records. No appreciation forecast and no property-level expense assumptions.

Greenville better fits a gross-cash-flow screen: its 5.94% gross yield exceeds Charlotte’s 5.37%, while its median value is $317,097. That combination gives a buyer more initial rent relative to acquisition price before property-level costs. Charlotte’s $1,750 asking rent is higher, but the supplied record does not establish stronger net income.

Greenville also offers the lower entry price and price-to-income measure, making it the clearer affordability fit for acquisition. Charlotte, however, has stronger tenant-side affordability: rent consumes 25.21% of median income. Employment is a close call. Greenville’s 1.36% job growth is faster, while Charlotte’s larger employment component score and migration scale support a different stability case.

Charlotte better fits supply discipline, with 3.7 months of supply and fewer permits per capita, although its large permit total warrants submarket scrutiny. Greenville better fits lower climate-risk tolerance because its annual climate loss ratio is 0.1201%; both markets’ dominant hazard is inland flood. Advance Greenville for yield, entry cost and lower recorded climate loss; advance Charlotte when rental affordability, market scale and comparatively restrained per-capita permitting matter more.

Evidence matrix

One question, two records

“n/a” means the current source did not publish a comparable value. It is never replaced with an estimate.

Decision evidenceCharlotte, NCGreenville, SC
Composite scoresame published scoring framework46/10051/100
Median home valueZillow ZHVI$390,942$317,097
Median asking rentZillow ZORI$1,750$1,570
Gross rental yieldrent × 12 ÷ price5.4%5.9%
Price to household incomevalue ÷ ACS income4.69x4.45x
Annual job changeCES▲ 1.08%▲ 1.36%
Months of supplylatest Redfin period when published3.7 mo.3.8 mo.
Net migrationIRS tax-return households+12,384+5,231
Expected annual building lossFEMA NRI market aggregate0.133%0.120%
Latest market momentum

Price and rent are not moving in lockstep

A shared zero-centred scale makes direction and magnitude comparable. This is a current annual change, not a forecast.

Latest annual home-value and asking-rent momentumCharlotte, NCLATEST YEAR-OVER-YEAR CHANGE0%HOME VALUE-0.4%ASKING RENT+0.4%-1.9%+1.9%Greenville, SCLATEST YEAR-OVER-YEAR CHANGE0%HOME VALUE+1.9%ASKING RENT+1.8%-1.9%+1.9%
Zillow ZHVI — metro home values · Metro_zhvi_uc_sfrcondo_tier_0.33_0.67_sm_sa_month.csv · pulled 2026-07-26Zillow ZORI — metro market rents · Metro_zori_uc_sfrcondomfr_sm_sa_month.csv · pulled 2026-07-26
Score fingerprint

The same total can hide a different market

Direct labels replace hover tooltips, so the full comparison remains visible in static HTML and print.

Component score differencesCharlotteCOMPOSITE SCORE46/100same national frameworkGreenvilleCOMPOSITE SCORE51/100same national frameworkCOMPONENT PROFILE0255075100Employment8589gap 4Rent trend926gap 17Affordability4638gap 8Supply discipline1915gap 4Climate safety5568gap 13CharlotteGreenville
Component percentiles use the same national scoring population and published weights on both market pages. See the source ledger below for the releases behind each component.
Price and rent history

Two growth paths, rebased to the same start

Each panel starts at 100. End labels expose whether rents or prices moved farther without asking the reader to chase a legend.

Indexed price and rent historyCharlotte, NCHOME VALUE INDEX163RENT INDEX13810013316520192026rebased to 100 at the first shared yearGreenville, SCHOME VALUE INDEX158RENT INDEX14110013316520192026rebased to 100 at the first shared year
Charlotte: price 163 · rent 138Greenville: price 158 · rent 141Zillow ZHVI — metro home values · Metro_zhvi_uc_sfrcondo_tier_0.33_0.67_sm_sa_month.csv · pulled 2026-07-26; Zillow ZORI — metro market rents · Metro_zori_uc_sfrcondomfr_sm_sa_month.csv · pulled 2026-07-26
Fit by objective

There is no universal winner

Five underwriting questions are kept in one decision ledger instead of five disconnected cards.

01
Cash flowGreenville

Greenville fits gross cash flow better: its gross yield is 5.94% versus Charlotte’s 5.37%. Charlotte collects the higher median asking rent at $1,750, compared with $1,570 in Greenville, but that rent sits against a higher purchase value. For a buyer, Greenville’s stronger rent-to-price relationship provides more gross revenue per acquisition dollar. This remains a screening conclusion because the records do not publish property-level operating costs, financing terms or vacancy.

02
AffordabilityGreenville

Greenville is the stronger acquisition-affordability fit, with a $317,097 median home value versus $390,942 in Charlotte and a lower price-to-income measure of 4.45 versus 4.69. That reduces the market-level capital threshold for property screening. Charlotte is more affordable for tenants on the supplied measure: rent-to-income is 25.21%, compared with 26.44% in Greenville. A buyer prioritizing entry price should favor Greenville; one emphasizing tenant payment headroom should examine Charlotte.

03
EmploymentDepends on the deal

Greenville has faster reported job growth at 1.36%, compared with 1.08% in Charlotte, so it better fits a buyer prioritizing current employment momentum. Charlotte has the stronger scale-oriented signal: its job component is 85, and net migration totals 12,384 versus 5,231 in Greenville. Those measures describe different strengths rather than a single stability winner. Buyers should test employer concentration and property-level tenant demand because neither is published in these records.

04
Supply disciplineCharlotte

Charlotte better fits supply discipline on the normalized construction measure: permits equal 7.89 per 1,000 residents, versus 9.49 in Greenville. Months of supply are also slightly tighter at 3.7 versus 3.8. For a buyer, those readings imply less marketwide competitive inventory pressure in Charlotte at screening stage. The trade-off is scale: Charlotte issued 21,846 permits, so underwriting still needs submarket pipeline checks rather than treating the metro-level fit as protection from nearby deliveries.

05
Climate riskGreenville

Greenville better fits lower climate-risk tolerance because its climate loss ratio is 0.1201%, compared with 0.1331% for Charlotte. Both records identify inland flood as the dominant hazard, so Greenville’s advantage does not remove the need for parcel-level flood review. For a buyer, the lower marketwide loss measure supports putting Greenville first when climate exposure is a binding screen, while insurance availability, premiums, elevation and prior property losses are not published here.

Your priorities, verified evidence

Which market fits your plan?

Answer five questions to reweight the published fit calls above. Your answers change the emphasis—not the evidence, figures or market scores.

Question 1 of 5Cash flow
How important is current income in your market decision?

Choose how much the published cash-flow fit should influence your result.

Income and pressure

Where the trade-off becomes visible

Yield and jobs answer a different question than supply and migration. The page keeps both views separate instead of blending them into one score.

Income × employment

Gross yield against job growth

Gross yield and job growth positionCharlotteGROSS YIELD5.4%JOB CHANGE1.1%GreenvilleGROSS YIELD5.9%JOB CHANGE1.4%MORE JOB MOMENTUMHIGHER YIELD + JOBSLOWER ON BOTH AXESMORE CURRENT YIELDCharlotteGreenville4.8%6.5%GROSS YIELD - HIGHER TO THE RIGHT1.9%0.5%
A position chart, not a forecast.Zillow ZHVI — metro home values · Metro_zhvi_uc_sfrcondo_tier_0.33_0.67_sm_sa_month.csv · pulled 2026-07-26Zillow ZORI — metro market rents · Metro_zori_uc_sfrcondomfr_sm_sa_month.csv · pulled 2026-07-26BLS CES — payroll employment · CES SM current · pulled 2026-07-26
Supply × demand

Capacity and household flow

Supply and migration balanceSUPPLY DISCIPLINEcomponent score and current listing supply0100Charlotte3.7 months listed19/100Greenville3.8 months listed15/100NET HOUSEHOLD MIGRATIONIRS tax-return householdsOUTFLOW0INFLOWCharlottenet tax-return households+12,384Greenvillenet tax-return households+5,231
Supply and IRS migration remain separate measures.Census Building Permits Survey — permitted units · BPS through 2026 · pulled 2026-07-26Redfin Data Center — inventory, days on market, and price cuts · metro tracker through 2026-05-01 · pulled 2026-07-26IRS SOI — county migration and mover income · SOI migration 2022-2023 · pulled 2026-07-26
Migration quality, not just volume

Adjust the flow for market size and mover income

Raw migration rewards a larger metro by construction. The rate below divides net mover tax returns by ACS population; the income bars then compare the adjusted gross income reported by arrivals and departures.

Migration volume adjusted for population and mover income qualityCharlotte, NCNET TAX-RETURN HOUSEHOLDS+4.5PER 1,000 RESIDENTS+12,384 raw netMOVER INCOME PER RETURNARRIVING$81,666LEAVING$81,616ARRIVING MINUS LEAVING AGI+$50Greenville, SCNET TAX-RETURN HOUSEHOLDS+5.4PER 1,000 RESIDENTS+5,231 raw netMOVER INCOME PER RETURNARRIVING$75,751LEAVING$63,674ARRIVING MINUS LEAVING AGI+$12,077
IRS SOI — county migration and mover income · SOI migration 2022-2023 · pulled 2026-07-26Census ACS 5-year — population · ACS 2024 5-year · pulled 2026-07-26“Per 1,000 residents” is a transparent normalization, not a published IRS rate.
Underwriting boundary

What this comparison cannot decide

Market evidence narrows the search. It does not price a roof, an insurance policy, a loan or a specific lease.

  1. Gross yield uses market-level asking rent and median value, not a specific property’s collected rent or purchase price. Taxes, insurance, maintenance, management, vacancy and financing are not published, so neither market’s net cash flow can be concluded from this comparison.
  2. Metro supply measures can conceal concentrated construction near a target property. Charlotte’s lower per-capita permitting and slightly tighter months of supply support screening, but buyers should verify nearby units under construction, concessions and lease-up timing before relying on that advantage.
  3. The climate loss ratios are broad market indicators, and both markets list inland flood as the dominant hazard. Parcel elevation, flood-zone status, drainage, claims history, mitigation features and current insurance quotes are not published; these can materially change the risk ranking for an individual asset.
Figure-level provenance

Which release supports which claim

Release period and retrieval date are shown separately. Follow any row to inspect the publisher; the complete build ledger is available on the sources page.

Census ACS 5-year — household incomeHousehold income and affordability ratiosACS 2024 5-year
Pulled 2026-08-02Census ACS 5-year — populationPopulation denominator for migration rateACS 2024 5-year
Pulled 2026-07-26BLS CES — payroll employmentPayroll employment change where availableCES SM current
Pulled 2026-07-26Census Building Permits Survey — permitted unitsPermitted housing units and supply scoreBPS through 2026
Pulled 2026-07-26FEMA National Risk Index — hazard loss ratiosExpected annual hazard loss ratioNRI counties (FEMA ArcGIS)
Pulled 2026-07-26IRS SOI — county migration and mover incomeMover tax returns, net flow and adjusted gross incomeSOI migration 2022-2023
Pulled 2026-07-26Redfin Data Center — inventory, days on market, and price cutsListing supply, days on market and price reductionsmetro tracker through 2026-05-01
Pulled 2026-07-26Zillow ZHVI — metro home valuesHome values, annual change and price historyMetro_zhvi_uc_sfrcondo_tier_0.33_0.67_sm_sa_month.csv
Pulled 2026-07-26Zillow ZORI — metro market rentsAsking rents, annual change and rent historyMetro_zori_uc_sfrcondomfr_sm_sa_month.csv
Pulled 2026-07-26
Open the complete source ledgerSee formulas and publish gates
From metro to local evidence

Open the counties inside each market

Metro averages can hide large local differences. These links are ordered by published ACS population and lead to county price, rent, listings, migration, investor and hazard evidence.

Related curated comparisonsKeep one market fixed, change the alternative
Atlanta vs CharlotteCharlotte vs Raleigh
Next underwriting step

Move from market screen to property test

CharlotteRun the cash-flow testPrefilled from this market's measured price and rentGreenvilleRun the cash-flow testUse the same assumptions for a fair comparisonAddress-level researchCheck rent by ZIPReplace the metro screen with a more local benchmark
31/31 published numeric claims matched current factsUpdated 2026-08-04Read the methodology