City limitsPlace boundary

Curated city comparison

FayettevilleFort Smith

Northwest and western Arkansas alternatives that diverge materially across all six direct-city investment screens.

Fayetteville, AR city briefFort Smith, AR city brief

Decision memo

The trade-off before property underwriting

The interpretation uses direct city records only. County and metro averages are not substituted into this comparison.

Fort Smith, AR better fits cash_flow and entry_affordability screening. Its Zillow gross yield is 6.51%, versus 5.36% in Fayetteville, AR, while its Zillow home-value index is $197,470.61, versus $385,227.38. Fort Smith also has the lower price-to-income measure at 3.60, compared with 6.14. Those advantages justify checking achievable property rent, condition, taxes, insurance and near-term capital needs before treating the headline spread as investable cash flow.

Fayetteville better fits renter_pressure and local_demand, but with meaningful underwriting tensions. Renters represent 58.16% of households, compared with 46.64% in Fort Smith, and Fayetteville’s overlapping-vintage ACS population change was 16.62%, versus 2.35%. Its unemployment rate is also lower at 4.01%, against 6.54%. Yet Fayetteville has a 9.44% vacancy rate and 49.16% rent burden, so property-level review should test submarket absorption, tenant affordability and competing supply rather than infer uniformly strong demand.

Housing_stock depends on the intended strategy. Fort Smith offers a 69.62% single-family share, supporting searches for conventional detached rentals, but its median year built is 1977 and therefore calls for close inspection of systems and deferred maintenance. Fayetteville’s median year built is 1997, while large multifamily represents 12.05% of units, making it the more natural screen for newer or denser stock. Underwrite both cities selectively: Fort Smith for lower-basis yield opportunities and Fayetteville for renter depth and growth, without declaring either city universally superior.

Direct city matrix

The same definition on both sides

“n/a” remains missing. Zillow indexes and ACS survey measures stay visibly separate.

Decision evidence	Fayetteville, AR	Fort Smith, AR
Typical home valueZillow ZHVI · city	$385,227	$197,471
Observed market rentZillow ZORI · city	$1,720	$1,071
Gross yieldZORI × 12 ÷ ZHVI · before costs	5.4%	6.5%
Price to household incomeZillow value ÷ ACS income	6.14x	3.60x
Annual rent to incomeZillow rent × 12 ÷ ACS income	32.9%	23.4%
Rent burdenACS renter households paying 30%+	49.2%	42.1%
Renter shareACS occupied housing	58.2%	46.6%
Vacancy rateACS all housing units	9.4%	9.1%
Population changebetween ACS vintages · not annualized	▲ 16.6%	▲ 2.4%
UnemploymentACS civilian labor force	4.0%	6.5%

Entry and income screen

Price, rent and yield do not tell the same story

Bars begin at zero within each measure. Gross yield remains a before-cost screen.

Zillow city ZHVI and ZORI · 2026-06 / 2026-06

Price and rent history

Two city paths, each rebased to 100

Each panel keeps price and rent in its own city; no level is borrowed across geographies.

Five-year path

Price and rent, rebased to 100

ZHVI +39.6%ZORI +33.5%

Each series starts at 100 so their direction can be compared without pretending that a home value and a monthly rent share the same unit.

Five-year path

Price and rent, rebased to 100

ZHVI +22.1%ZORI +33.1%

Each series starts at 100 so their direction can be compared without pretending that a home value and a monthly rent share the same unit.

Fit by objective

There is no universal city winner

Five city questions remain separate so a yield lead cannot erase affordability or demand risk.

Cash-flow screenFort Smith

Fort Smith, AR better fits cash_flow because its gross Zillow yield is 6.51%, versus 5.36% in Fayetteville, AR. Fort Smith’s rent index also rose 5.46% year over year, compared with 1.53% in Fayetteville. The next check is property-specific rent, occupancy and operating expenses; gross yield excludes vacancy, management, repairs, taxes, insurance, utilities, financing and capital work.

Entry affordabilityFort Smith

Fort Smith, AR better fits entry_affordability: its Zillow home-value index is $197,470.61, while Fayetteville, AR is $385,227.38. The price-to-income measures reinforce the distinction at 3.60 and 6.14, respectively. ACS median home value answers a survey question rather than providing a competing appraisal. Property review should now focus on neighborhood-specific basis, renovation scope and whether Fort Smith’s lower entry point survives condition adjustments.

Renter pressureFayetteville

Fayetteville, AR better fits renter_pressure because renters account for 58.16% of households, compared with 46.64% in Fort Smith, AR. Fayetteville also has greater rent burden at 49.16%, versus 42.12%, signaling both renter dependence and affordability strain. Vacancy is slightly higher in Fayetteville at 9.44%, against 9.14%, so the next check is unit-level absorption, concessions, tenant income qualification and nearby competing inventory.

Housing stockDepends on the property

Housing_stock depends on asset strategy. Fort Smith, AR has a 69.62% single-family share, versus 55.45% in Fayetteville, AR, favoring a detached-rental search. Fayetteville has a 12.05% large-multifamily share, compared with 6.59% in Fort Smith, and its median year built is 1997 rather than 1977. Inspect age-sensitive systems, deferred maintenance and unit configuration before choosing between lower-density Fort Smith stock and newer, denser Fayetteville options.

Local demand riskFayetteville

Fayetteville, AR better fits local_demand. Its population change across overlapping ACS vintages was 16.62%, compared with 2.35% in Fort Smith, AR; this is not an annualized growth rate. Fayetteville’s unemployment rate is 4.01%, versus 6.54% in Fort Smith, while median household income is $62,695 against $54,816. Verify neighborhood-level leasing velocity, employer concentration and tenant turnover before underwriting this citywide demand advantage.

Household pressure

Acquisition and renter affordability

Zillow city indexes divided by direct ACS city household measures.

Housing system

Tenure, vacancy and structure

ACS citywide housing characteristics; not rentable inventory or lease-up speed.

Underwriting boundary

What this city comparison cannot decide

City evidence narrows a search; it does not appraise, inspect or finance a property.

01
Zillow indexes and ACS survey measures answer different questions. Citywide Zillow values and rents are screening indicators, while ACS median home value and median gross rent describe surveyed housing; they should not be averaged or treated as interchangeable property appraisals.
02
Gross yield is a pre-expense screen only. It excludes vacancy, management, repairs, taxes, insurance, utilities, financing and capital work, so property-level cash flow could differ materially after inspection, expense verification and realistic occupancy assumptions.
03
Population change uses overlapping ACS vintages and is not annualized. Citywide vacancy, renter share, burden and unemployment can also conceal neighborhood and asset-class variation, requiring submarket rent comps, concessions, condition review and recent leasing evidence.

Figure-level provenance

The direct sources behind both records

Release period and retrieval date remain separate. Open either city brief for its complete geography ledger.

Census ACS 5-year — city population, households and housingACS 2024 5-yearPulled 2026-07-29 Census ACS 5-year — cities and communitiesACS 2024 5-yearPulled 2026-07-30 Zillow ZHVI — city home valueszillow_zhvi_city.csvPulled 2026-07-29 Zillow ZORI — city market rentszillow_zori_city.csvPulled 2026-07-29

Fayetteville, AROpen the complete city brief99,319 residents in the current ACS record Fort Smith, AROpen the complete city brief89,805 residents in the current ACS record Property testStress-test the same assumptionsReplace city averages with an actual deal