City limitsPlace boundary

Curated city comparison

OaklandSan Francisco

Neighboring Bay cities whose direct records separate entry price, affordability, renter pressure, housing stock and local demand risk.

Oakland, CA city briefSan Francisco, CA 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.

Oakland better fits cash flow and entry affordability: its Zillow city value is $721,965.91, versus $1,395,852.01 in San Francisco, while gross yield is 4.34% versus 3.78%. Oakland also has the lower price-to-income measure, 7.11 versus 9.90. Property underwriting should next test achievable unit rent, taxes, insurance, repairs and financing.

Renter pressure depends on the signal. San Francisco has the larger renter share at 61.79%, but also the higher vacancy rate at 12.21%. Oakland’s renters show greater affordability stress, with 51.10% paying at least the survey burden threshold. For housing stock, Oakland better fits a single-family strategy, while San Francisco better fits large-multifamily sourcing; inspect zoning, unit legality, deferred maintenance and tenant protections.

Oakland better fits local-demand stability in these records: population change was 3.37%, compared with -5.11% in San Francisco, across overlapping ACS vintages and not annualized. San Francisco nevertheless has stronger Zillow rent momentum, at 20.25% year over year versus 7.77% in Oakland. Advance both cities only to neighborhood and property checks, emphasizing Oakland’s operating-cost sensitivity and San Francisco’s vacancy, entry-price and demand-recovery risks.

Direct city matrix

The same definition on both sides

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

Decision evidence	Oakland, CA	San Francisco, CA
Typical home valueZillow ZHVI · city	$721,966	$1,395,852
Observed market rentZillow ZORI · city	$2,614	$4,401
Gross yieldZORI × 12 ÷ ZHVI · before costs	4.3%	3.8%
Price to household incomeZillow value ÷ ACS income	7.11x	9.90x
Annual rent to incomeZillow rent × 12 ÷ ACS income	30.9%	37.5%
Rent burdenACS renter households paying 30%+	51.1%	39.6%
Renter shareACS occupied housing	57.7%	61.8%
Vacancy rateACS all housing units	7.9%	12.2%
Population changebetween ACS vintages · not annualized	▲ 3.4%	▼ 5.1%
UnemploymentACS civilian labor force	6.4%	6.1%

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 −20.1%ZORI +11.7%

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 +0.5%ZORI +41.8%

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 screenOakland

Oakland better fits cash flow on the published city indexes: gross yield is 4.34%, compared with 3.78% in San Francisco, while Zillow rent growth is 7.77% versus 20.25%. San Francisco’s stronger rent momentum is attractive, but its lower starting yield leaves less apparent room for costs. Underwrite actual leases, vacancy, management, repairs, taxes, insurance, utilities, financing and capital work before relying on either indication.

Entry affordabilityOakland

Oakland better fits entry affordability. Its Zillow city home-value index is $721,965.91, against $1,395,852.01 in San Francisco, and its price-to-income measure is 7.11 rather than 9.90. Oakland values were down 4.55% year over year, while San Francisco values rose 9.48%. The next check is property-specific acquisition cost, required rehabilitation, financing terms and legally supportable income—not the ACS median home value, which is a survey measure rather than a competing appraisal.

Renter pressureDepends on the property

Renter pressure depends on definition. San Francisco has the higher renter share, 61.79% versus Oakland’s 57.67%, and Zillow rent growth of 20.25% versus 7.77%. Yet San Francisco’s vacancy rate is also higher at 12.21%, while Oakland has the higher rent-burden share at 51.10%. Verify neighborhood vacancy, concessions, turnover and applicant income; citywide renter prevalence does not establish demand for a particular unit.

Housing stockDepends on the property

Housing-stock fit depends on the intended asset. Oakland has a 46.28% single-family share versus 30.41% in San Francisco, favoring searches for detached rentals. San Francisco has a 30.75% large-multifamily share versus Oakland’s 22.75%, offering a deeper citywide base for that format. Both stocks are old by median year built—1953 in Oakland and 1946 in San Francisco—so property review should emphasize systems, seismic exposure, code status, unit legality and capital needs.

Local demand riskOakland

Oakland better fits local-demand stability in the available demographic record. Its population change is 3.37%, while San Francisco’s is -5.11%; these compare overlapping ACS vintages and are not annualized. San Francisco counters with 20.25% Zillow rent growth versus Oakland’s 7.77%, so current pricing momentum and resident-base direction conflict. Test submarket employment access, leasing velocity, concessions and tenant retention before treating either citywide signal as durable property demand.

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
Gross yield is a city-index screening measure only. It excludes vacancy, management, repairs, taxes, insurance, utilities, financing and capital work, and therefore cannot substitute for property-level net operating income or cash-on-cash underwriting.
02
Zillow indexes and ACS survey measures answer different questions. Zillow tracks city market value and rent indexes, while ACS median rent and value describe surveyed housing; they should not be averaged or treated as competing appraisals.
03
Population change comes from overlapping ACS vintages and is not annualized. Citywide vacancy, renter share and stock composition can also conceal sharp neighborhood and building-level differences, so verify listings, concessions, legal units and physical condition.

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

Oakland, CAOpen the complete city brief439,418 residents in the current ACS record San Francisco, CAOpen the complete city brief830,235 residents in the current ACS record Property testStress-test the same assumptionsReplace city averages with an actual deal