City limitsPlace boundary

Curated city comparison

NashuaLawrence

Nearby New England city alternatives with similar population scale and materially different affordability, renter pressure, housing stock and local-demand evidence.

Nashua, NH city briefLawrence, MA 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.

For property-level underwriting, Lawrence, MA better fits cash flow and renter pressure, while Nashua, NH better fits entry affordability, housing stock and local demand. Lawrence’s 5.40% gross yield exceeds Nashua’s 5.14%, and its 71.94% renter share accompanies a 2.21% vacancy rate. Those signals favor landlord demand, but they do not establish net operating income.

Nashua offers the more defensible buyer-income relationship: its Zillow price-to-income measure is 5.37 versus 8.64 in Lawrence, despite similar Zillow values. Nashua also has a 50.29% single-family share and a 1975 median year built, compared with 26.82% and 1950 in Lawrence. Underwriting should therefore test Nashua for acquisition basis, condition and attainable rent, while Lawrence requires sharper scrutiny of older-building capital needs and tenant affordability.

Demand evidence splits. Lawrence’s population change was 11.00% across overlapping ACS vintages, versus 2.79% for Nashua, and Zillow rent growth was 3.34% versus 2.61%. Yet Lawrence’s 17.60% poverty rate and 8.47% unemployment rate materially exceed Nashua’s 7.82% and 4.23%. Advance both cities only after address-level checks of taxes, insurance, utilities, vacancy history, tenant turnover, code status, deferred maintenance and achievable rents.

Direct city matrix

The same definition on both sides

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

Decision evidence	Nashua, NH	Lawrence, MA
Typical home valueZillow ZHVI · city	$517,357	$521,895
Observed market rentZillow ZORI · city	$2,216	$2,347
Gross yieldZORI × 12 ÷ ZHVI · before costs	5.1%	5.4%
Price to household incomeZillow value ÷ ACS income	5.37x	8.64x
Annual rent to incomeZillow rent × 12 ÷ ACS income	27.6%	46.6%
Rent burdenACS renter households paying 30%+	45.8%	60.6%
Renter shareACS occupied housing	44.2%	71.9%
Vacancy rateACS all housing units	4.2%	2.2%
Population changebetween ACS vintages · not annualized	▲ 2.8%	▲ 11.0%
UnemploymentACS civilian labor force	4.2%	8.5%

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 +35.1%ZORI +31.7%

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 +33.5%ZORI +37.4%

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 screenLawrence

Lawrence, MA has the stronger top-line cash-flow signal: a 5.40% gross yield versus 5.14% in Nashua, NH, alongside Zillow rent of $2,347 versus $2,216. The margin is modest and gross yield excludes all operating and capital costs. Underwrite actual taxes, insurance, owner-paid utilities, management, vacancy, repairs and financing for each candidate; an older Lawrence asset could lose the apparent advantage after expenses.

Entry affordabilityNashua

Nashua, NH better fits entry affordability relative to local earnings. Its Zillow price-to-income measure is 5.37, compared with 8.64 in Lawrence, MA, while Zillow values are $517,357 and $521,895 respectively. Similar indexed purchase values therefore sit against very different household-income capacity. The next check is property-specific acquisition cost, required rehabilitation and realistic financing terms; ACS median home value should remain housing-context evidence, not a competing appraisal.

Renter pressureLawrence

Lawrence, MA shows greater renter pressure than Nashua, NH: renters represent 71.94% of households versus 44.19%, vacancy is 2.21% versus 4.20%, and rent burden reaches 60.60% versus 45.84%. That supports occupancy potential but also signals affordability strain and possible collection or turnover risk. Verify unit-level asking rents, concessions, arrears, eviction history and tenant-paid utilities before treating tight supply as dependable revenue.

Housing stockNashua

Nashua, NH better fits a housing-stock objective seeking newer assets and more single-family optionality. Its median year built is 1975 and single-family share is 50.29%, versus 1950 and 26.82% in Lawrence, MA. Lawrence may offer denser rental formats, but its large-multifamily share is only 16.11%, compared with 18.03% in Nashua. Inspect roofs, structure, electrical, plumbing, heating, environmental conditions and code compliance rather than inferring condition from age alone.

Local demand riskNashua

Local demand depends on whether growth or household resilience receives more weight, but Nashua, NH is the safer fit. Lawrence, MA recorded 11.00% population change versus Nashua’s 2.79%, yet Lawrence also has 17.60% poverty and 8.47% unemployment, compared with 7.82% and 4.23%. Test employer concentration, applicant income, collections and turnover at the neighborhood and property level; population change uses overlapping ACS vintages and is not annualized.

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 movement, while ACS measures describe surveyed housing and households. Neither establishes a specific property’s market value, achievable lease rent, physical condition, taxes or operating expenses; ACS median rent and value must not be treated as competing appraisals.
02
Gross yield is only a top-line screen. It excludes vacancy, management, repairs, property taxes, insurance, utilities, financing and capital work, so Lawrence’s apparent advantage could reverse after reviewing actual trailing operations and inspection findings.
03
ACS population change compares overlapping survey vintages and is not annualized. Citywide renter shares, vacancy, poverty and unemployment can also conceal substantial neighborhood variation, making address-level leasing evidence, tenant records and local code review essential.

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

Nashua, NHOpen the complete city brief91,294 residents in the current ACS record Lawrence, MAOpen the complete city brief88,736 residents in the current ACS record Property testStress-test the same assumptionsReplace city averages with an actual deal