City limitsPlace boundary

Curated city comparison

MissoulaLoveland

Interior West alternatives with similar population scale but materially different gross-yield, buyer-affordability and housing-stock evidence.

Missoula, MT city briefLoveland, CO 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.

Loveland better fits cash flow and entry affordability. Its Zillow gross yield is 4.42% versus Missoula’s 3.23%, while its home-value index is $504,320.63 versus $576,302.66. Loveland also has the lower price-to-income measure, 5.96 versus 8.19. These signals justify underwriting Loveland listings first for basis, achievable rent, and expense-adjusted returns; gross yield itself excludes all operating and financing costs.

Renter pressure depends on the strategy. Missoula has a 53.01% renter share and 6.37% vacancy, while Loveland has a 37.85% renter share and 2.21% vacancy. Missoula therefore offers a broader renter base, but Loveland’s tighter occupied-unit picture may provide stronger scarcity support. Property review should test current concessions, days vacant, competing units, and tenant-paid utilities rather than treating either citywide measure as a building-level forecast.

Housing stock also depends on product type: Loveland is more single-family-oriented at 74.17%, while Missoula has a larger large-multifamily share at 13.55%. For local demand, Missoula has the stronger population-change signal at 3.80% versus 1.87%, although these are overlapping ACS-vintage changes and are not annualized. Loveland’s higher household income, $84,604 versus $70,392, supports a different demand case. Underwrite neighborhood supply, unit condition, employer access, and realistic tenant profiles next.

Direct city matrix

The same definition on both sides

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

Decision evidence	Missoula, MT	Loveland, CO
Typical home valueZillow ZHVI · city	$576,303	$504,321
Observed market rentZillow ZORI · city	$1,550	$1,859
Gross yieldZORI × 12 ÷ ZHVI · before costs	3.2%	4.4%
Price to household incomeZillow value ÷ ACS income	8.19x	5.96x
Annual rent to incomeZillow rent × 12 ÷ ACS income	26.4%	26.4%
Rent burdenACS renter households paying 30%+	49.9%	54.3%
Renter shareACS occupied housing	53.0%	37.8%
Vacancy rateACS all housing units	6.4%	2.2%
Population changebetween ACS vintages · not annualized	▲ 3.8%	▲ 1.9%
UnemploymentACS civilian labor force	3.8%	5.4%

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 +26.0%ZORI +25.3%

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 +12.0%ZORI +22.9%

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 screenLoveland

Loveland, CO better fits cash flow on the published Zillow measures: gross yield is 4.42%, compared with 3.23% in Missoula, MT. Loveland’s rent index is also higher at $1,859.37 while its value index is lower at $504,320.63. Underwriting should next verify achievable unit rent and every recurring expense, because gross yield excludes vacancy, management, repairs, taxes, insurance, utilities, financing, and capital work.

Entry affordabilityLoveland

Loveland, CO better fits entry affordability: its Zillow home-value index is $504,320.63, versus $576,302.66 in Missoula, MT, a published difference of $71,982.02. Its price-to-income measure is also lower at 5.96 versus 8.19. The next check is actual listing basis by neighborhood and property condition; the ACS median home value is a surveyed owner-housing measure, not a competing appraisal or substitute purchase price.

Renter pressureDepends on the property

Missoula, MT has the broader renter base, with renters at 53.01% of households versus 37.85% in Loveland, CO. Loveland, however, has tighter reported vacancy at 2.21% versus Missoula’s 6.37%, and higher rent burden at 54.34% versus 49.92%. Choose Missoula for renter-market depth or Loveland for scarcity evidence, then verify property-level concessions, turnover, tenant qualifications, and directly competing vacancies.

Housing stockDepends on the property

Loveland, CO better fits a single-family rental search, with a 74.17% single-family share versus 55.16% in Missoula, MT. Missoula better fits a search centered on larger multifamily assets, with a 13.55% share versus Loveland’s 7.97%. Median year built is 1993 in Loveland and 1981 in Missoula. Inspect roofs, systems, deferred maintenance, unit mix, and local comparable inventory before favoring either stock profile.

Local demand riskDepends on the property

Missoula, MT has the stronger population-change signal at 3.80%, compared with 1.87% in Loveland, CO. Loveland counters with higher median household income of $84,604 versus $70,392, while Missoula has lower unemployment at 3.78% versus 5.42%. These indicators support different tenant pools rather than one definitive winner. Verify neighborhood-level employers, commute access, leasing velocity, and the target unit’s attainable renter profile.

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 describe city-level market pricing and rent, while ACS figures describe surveyed households and housing. They should not be averaged, and ACS median gross rent or median home value should not be treated as a competing appraisal.
02
The population-change measures compare overlapping ACS vintages and are not annualized. They indicate differing city-level direction, but they cannot establish recent migration momentum, neighborhood absorption, or future leasing demand for a specific property.
03
Gross yield is a screening measure only. It excludes vacancy, management, repairs, taxes, insurance, utilities, financing, and capital work; property-level cash flow may reverse the city ranking after actual rents, expenses, condition, and acquisition terms are verified.

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

Missoula, MTOpen the complete city brief76,514 residents in the current ACS record Loveland, COOpen the complete city brief78,410 residents in the current ACS record Property testStress-test the same assumptionsReplace city averages with an actual deal