States / Arizona
State rental intelligence

Arizona rental market data

A source-traced view across 10 metro markets and 15 counties. State figures below are labelled medians and totals—not a made-up statewide investment score.

8/10 metros scored15/15 counties with FEMA risk14 sources used in this analysis
Median scored metro20.5out of 100 · 8 measured metros
Arizona identity diorama showing regional landscape, cities, housing, and infrastructure
Median metro home value$349kmedian across published metro values
Median metro rent$1,602monthly · published metro values
Median gross yield5.3%annual rent ÷ price · before costs
Median job trend▼ 0.8%trailing 12-month metro employment
Direct monthly rental evidence

Arizona rent market dynamics

Apartment List measures recent leases, rental vacancy and listing time separately. These figures do not replace Zillow, Census or Realtor measures elsewhere on this page.

Recent-lease rent$1,2972026-07 · ▼ 2.8% year over year
Rental Vacancy Index8.1%2026-07 · −0.2 pp in 12 months
Time on market33 days2026-07 · +2 days in 12 months
US recent-lease rent$1,3882026-07 · ▼ 1.1% year over year
Rent and rental vacancy through timesolid state series · dashed national series · no interpolation across missing observations
Recent-lease rent$1,557$1,190$823Rental Vacancy Index9.1%5.7%2.4%2017-012021-102026-07ArizonaUnited States
State research brief

Recent-lease rents fell 2.8% and rental listings took 2.3 days longer even as measured metro asking rents rose 2.1%, making rent definition and locality the central Arizona screen.

Updated 2026-08-08 · evidence current to the releases listed below.

Arizona's direct recent-lease series gives a mixed operating signal. Rent declined from $1,335 to $1,297, rental time on market increased from 31.0 to 33.3 days, and the vacancy index edged down from 8.3% to 8.1%. Lower vacancy is a genuine counter-signal to the rent decline and slower marketing, so the packet does not support a simple statewide tightening or weakening label.

Local indicators are also split. Across measured metros, median Zillow asking-rent growth was 2.1% while median home-value growth was 0.4%. Net county migration was positive, but the median metro employment reading was negative. Screening should therefore rely on local achieved-rent evidence, employer exposure, lease-up assumptions and resale conditions rather than treating any state median as a property result. The packet cannot establish future rent direction, property expenses, unit condition or neighborhood-level demand.

01

Apartment List recent-lease rent fell 2.8% while rental time on market rose 2.3 days → stress achieved rent and lease-up time rather than relying on asking-rent growth

02

Median Zillow asking-rent growth of 2.1% exceeded median home-value growth of 0.4% across measured metros → investigate local rent-price separation, then verify it with signed-lease comparables

03

Net county migration of 17,333 contrasted with a 0.8% decline in median metro employment → require submarket employer and tenant-pool evidence before treating migration as demand support

04

Median resale conditions of 4.7 months of supply, 57 days on market and a 27.3% price-reduction share → include disposition time and buyer negotiation in the exit screen

05

Median county rent burden of 46.8% → test tenant affordability before underwriting further rent increases

01
Direct state rental dynamics

Lower recent-lease rents came with longer marketing, not higher vacancy

Apartment List's state recent-lease rent was $1,297, down 2.8% from $1,335 a year earlier. The decline was 1.8 percentage points steeper than the national series. Separately, Arizona's rental vacancy index was 8.1%, down 0.2 percentage points from 8.3%, while rental time on market increased by 2.3 days to 33.3 days.

The fall in recent-lease rent and longer marketing time support conservative achieved-rent and lease-up assumptions. The lower vacancy reading pushes the other way and prevents an inference that vacancies broadly expanded. These are separate Apartment List measures with different coverage: they describe statewide rental conditions, not the same units or every Arizona submarket.

Evidence: Apartment List Rent Estimates — recent-lease rent index · Apartment List Time on Market — listing liquidity · Apartment List Vacancy Index — rental vacancy

02
Price and rent momentum

Asking-rent growth outpaced home-value growth in measured metros

Across 10 measured metros, median Zillow home-value growth was 0.4%, with a 10th-to-90th range from a 1.7% decline to a 2.2% increase. Asking-rent growth was available for eight metros and had a 2.1% median, with a narrower 0.5% to 2.8% range. The supplied median rent-growth advantage over price growth was 1.7 percentage points.

Payson, AZ illustrates the separation: asking rent rose 3.1% while home value fell 1.2%, with a reported gross yield of 5.3%. Yuma, AZ had 2.5% rent growth, 1.2% home-value growth and a 6.3% gross yield. These Zillow asking-rent observations are not the Apartment List recent-lease series, so their opposite state-level direction should trigger comparable-level verification rather than averaging the measures together.

Evidence: Zillow ZHVI — metro home values · Zillow ZORI — metro market rents

03
Employment and household movement

Positive migration did not align with the median metro job reading

The median employment change across 10 measured metros was a 0.8% decline. The 10th-to-90th range ran from a 2.6% decline to a 0.7% increase, showing that labor conditions were not uniform. Selected positive readings included 1.1% in Nogales, AZ, 0.6% in Payson, AZ and 0.2% in Phoenix, AZ.

Across all 15 counties with migration data, 171,163 movers entered and 153,830 left, producing net inflow of 17,333, or 2.3 per 1,000 residents. Aggregate inbound adjusted gross income exceeded outbound adjusted gross income by $74,738. Migration and mover income therefore provide a counterweight to the negative median job reading, but the series cover different periods and geographic concepts. They cannot establish current tenant demand for a specific property or employer base.

Evidence: Census ACS 5-year — population · BLS CES — payroll employment · BLS LAUS — resident employment · IRS SOI — county migration and mover income

04
Supply and resale conditions

Resale softness takes different forms across Arizona metros

Across 10 measured metros, the median resale market had 4.7 months of supply, 57 days on market, price reductions on 27.3% of listings and a 98.0% sale-to-list ratio. These are resale measures and should not be combined with Apartment List's rental time-on-market series.

Nogales, AZ had 6.4 months of supply and 116 days on market despite only 360 permitted units, equal to 7.4 per 1,000 residents. Phoenix, AZ had 34,118 permitted units, 3.5 months of supply and 61 days on market, but 32.9% of listings had price reductions. Yuma, AZ combined 1,154 permits with 5.4 months of supply, 74 days on market and a 13.8% price-reduction share. The examples do not support one statewide softness profile; acquisition screens need separate assumptions for competing construction and eventual resale liquidity.

Evidence: Census Building Permits Survey — permitted units · Redfin Data Center — inventory, days on market, and price cuts

05
Housing stock and tenant conditions

High renter burden coexists with wide county vacancy dispersion

Across 15 counties, the median ACS housing-stock vacancy rate was 16.3%, with a 10th-to-90th range of 9.2% to 29.1%. The median renter share was 27.9%, while the median share of renters spending at least 30% of income on rent was 46.8%. Rent burden ranged from 25.8% to 52.2% across the same percentile span.

Pima County had 8.8% housing-stock vacancy and 53.2% rent burden; Maricopa County had 8.2% vacancy and 52.6% burden. Coconino County combined a 40.3% renter share with 22.0% vacancy and 51.6% burden. High burden may limit rent headroom even where renter presence is substantial. ACS vacancy covers all housing stock rather than current rental availability, so it cannot be substituted for Apartment List's rental vacancy index or a property's competitive-set vacancy.

Evidence: Census ACS 5-year — county housing value, tenure and stock

06
Physical risk and property tax

County hazard-loss ratios and tax burdens do not line up neatly

Across 15 counties, the median FEMA loss ratio was 0.21%, with a 10th-to-90th range of 0.17% to 0.34%. The median effective property-tax rate was 0.51%, with a 0.42% to 0.68% percentile range, and the median tax bill was $1,333.

La Paz County had a 0.36% loss ratio, a 0.64% property-tax rate and an $873 median tax bill. Coconino County had a 0.33% loss ratio, a 0.46% tax rate and a $2,051 median bill. Apache County had a higher 0.90% tax rate but a 0.18% loss ratio and a $572 median bill. Inland flood is the mutually exclusive leading-hazard label for 14 counties and earthquake for one; neither label establishes parcel-level exposure. Property screening still lacks parcel hazard data, insurance terms and the subject property's assessed-tax treatment.

Evidence: FEMA National Risk Index — hazard loss ratios · Census ACS 5-year — effective property tax

State ZIP rental intelligence

How direct rental evidence varies inside Arizona

The distribution uses 30 current published ZIP reports across 9 cities and 3 counties. Twelve measured counter-signals are shown below; this is not a statewide neighborhood ranking.

Published ZIP rent range$1,104$2,317full direct-ZORI report cohort
Median rent / income23.7%annual asking rent ÷ ACS household income
Median one-year growth▲ 0.8%exact direct Zillow endpoints
Renter households covered259,627across published ZCTA matches
01 · RENT DISPERSIONRepresentative direct ZIP ZORI
Horizontal bars compare direct Zillow asking-rent indexes for the twelve representative published ZIP reports.85383$2,31785295$1,85685024$1,84785281$1,68785741$1,58985745$1,50485718$1,46985204$1,43085022$1,38485035$1,35485719$1,29985710$1,104
02 · AFFORDABILITY PRESSURERent / income × observed burden
Horizontal position is annual Zillow asking rent divided by ACS median household income. Vertical position is the ACS share of renter households paying thirty percent or more.63.5%56.2%48.8%41.5%34.2%852818571985710850228520485035852958574585741857188502485383Annual asking rent / ACS household income →ACS renter burden share →
03 · PATH QUALITYOne-year growth × variability
Each point compares exact one-year Zillow asking-rent growth with annualized variability from the direct monthly series.5.9%4.7%3.6%2.4%1.3%852818571985710850228520485035852958574585741857188502485383Exact one-year Zillow rent growth →Annualized monthly variability →
WHAT THE STATE DISTRIBUTION SAYS

Arizona’s practical rent question is not captured by a single figure. In the current published direct-evidence ZIP-report distribution, Zillow’s June 2026 ZORI observed asking-rent index ranges from $1,104 to $2,317; the median is $1,468.50. It makes a single statewide rule of thumb less useful for screening a move or renewal for a household. The first decision screen is therefore the local reported asking-rent level, followed by whether recent movement and household resources tell a compatible story. This comparison set covers current published direct-evidence ZIP reports only, not every Arizona ZIP, neighborhood, or rental property, so its dispersion is a reported-market distribution rather than complete statewide inventory. That boundary matters when comparing ZIP reports.

Affordability and renter burden answer related but distinct questions. The asking-rent-to-median-income ratio ranges from 15.3% to 36.9%. In 85719, the index implies $51,960 of annual income at a 30% rent share, above its $42,241 median household income; its estimated renter burden share is 61.0%. Yet 85710 pairs a lower 23.2% asking-rent-to-income ratio with a 58.5% 30%-plus burden share. The ratio combines current ZORI with ACS income, while burden is an ACS five-year ZCTA estimate of renter households’ gross-rent pressure; neither substitutes for the other. The measures use different inputs and time frames, so they work as complementary context rather than a single household pass/fail test. They also cannot identify whether a particular renter’s income, unit choice, or lease arrangement matches either area measure.

Rent direction likewise does not determine volatility. From Zillow’s direct monthly series, one-year rent change runs from -4.7% to 5.8%; annualized volatility spans 2.3% to 4.9%. The difference is material in 85035: its +1.6% one-year change coexists with the group’s highest volatility and a -13.9% maximum drawdown. By contrast, 85741 is the upper-growth endpoint, but that position does not establish a future trajectory. Different ZIP histories can produce different recent rent paths at different points in the series. Use momentum to describe the latest historical direction and volatility/drawdown to assess historical variation, not as forecasts.

HUD provides a different reference point, not a competing asking-rent observation. The report-level asking-rent-to-HUD two-bedroom ratio runs from 69.9% to 106.7%. At the upper endpoint, 85745’s $1,504 ZORI value is above its $1,410 HUD benchmark; 85022 marks the lower ratio endpoint. HUD FMR/SAFMR is an administrative bedroom standard used for program purposes, whereas ZORI is an observed area asking-rent index. Program use does not make the HUD figure a prediction, offer price, or required rent for a given apartment. Neither prices a specific available unit: bedroom mix, unit-specific terms, and any property-level characteristics are outside these measures. The comparison supports benchmark context, not a judgment about an individual listing.

Representative direct evidence

Twelve useful contrasts, every one traceable

The statewide summaries use all 30 qualifying reports. The table preserves measured extremes in rent, affordability, burden, momentum, volatility and the HUD benchmark gap.

ZIP reportPlaceZillow rent1Y growthRent / incomeBurden 30%+VariabilityHUD 2BR gap
85281Tempe$1,687▼ 2.3%31.4%48.7%2.7%▲ 83.9%
85719Tucson$1,299▲ 1.0%36.9%61.0%2.8%▲ 94.1%
85710Tucson$1,104▲ 0.0%23.2%58.5%2.7%▲ 77.7%
85022Phoenix$1,384▲ 0.9%23.8%56.8%3.1%▲ 69.9%
85204Mesa$1,430▼ 4.7%23.8%53.0%2.9%▲ 84.1%
85035Phoenix$1,354▲ 1.6%26.9%57.6%4.9%▲ 85.2%
85295Gilbert$1,856▼ 1.1%18.8%52.1%2.3%▲ 80.7%
85745Tucson$1,504▲ 0.3%25.3%41.3%4.8%▲ 106.7%
85741Tucson$1,589▲ 5.8%25.0%46.7%3.4%▲ 91.8%
85718Tucson$1,469▲ 1.7%15.3%41.8%3.7%▲ 102.0%
85024Phoenix$1,847▲ 3.2%20.8%36.7%2.8%▲ 88.0%
85383Peoria$2,317▼ 1.9%19.1%53.8%2.9%▲ 86.8%
READ BEFORE USING

Zillow ZORI is an observed asking-rent index for the published ZIP report and period, rather than a census of signed leases or a quote for a particular home. It can differ from an available unit’s rent, timing, bedroom configuration, and lease-specific terms.

ACS five-year figures are survey estimates for Census ZCTAs, which are statistical areas rather than USPS delivery ZIPs, and HUD FMR/SAFMR values are administrative bedroom standards. Geographic correspondence, survey uncertainty, and measure definitions limit one-to-one comparisons with ZORI.

SOURCE LEDGERCensus ACS five-year — ZCTA housing and incomeACS 2024 5-year ZCTA · pulled 2026-08-08HUD USPS crosswalk and Small Area FMRs — ZIP rent fallbackZIP-CBSA 2025Q4 + SAFMR FY2026 · pulled 2026-07-26Zillow ZORI — ZIP market rentsZORI ZIP 2026-06 · pulled 2026-08-08
Evidence selected for Arizona

The ranges behind the analysis

Each row keeps its own unit and shows the measured 10th percentile, median and 90th percentile. A single-value row is labelled directly.

Price and rent momentumAre home values and asking rents moving together or separating?
10th pct.median90th pct.Home-value change-1.7%0.4%2.2%Asking-rent change0.5%2.1%2.8%Rent minus price1.7%
Employment and household movementDo jobs, household movement and mover income point in the same direction?
10th pct.median90th pct.Job change-2.6%-0.8%0.7%Net migration / 1k2.3Net household movement17,333
Supply and resale conditionsWhat do permits, inventory, marketing time and price cuts say about pressure?
10th pct.median90th pct.Permits / 1k2.94.26.8Months of supply3.7×4.7×6.6×Days on market39 days57 days78 daysListings with cuts20.4%27.3%31.5%
Shape of the state

Distribution before conclusion

A statewide median can hide a wide spread. These SVG charts render at build time and carry no chart library or browser-side data request.

Metro score distribution8 scored metros · median 20.5
20–19620–39040–59060–79080–100
County evidence coverageEvery gap stays visible as missing—not estimated
80%12/15Rent100%15/15Climate100%15/15Migration
Highest measured metro gross yieldsscreening metric only · before expenses and financing
Safford6.4%Yuma6.3%Nogales5.8%Sierra Vista5.7%Payson5.3%Lake Havasu City5.2%Tucson5.2%
Metro leaderboard

Markets touching Arizona

Multi-state CBSAs appear in every member state. Score is still a metro score; no value is reweighted into a statewide ranking.

#MetroScorePriceRentYieldJobs
1Payson, AZ38$392k$1,7455.3%▲ 0.6%
2Phoenix, AZ36$447k$1,7334.7%▲ 0.2%
3Tucson, AZ28$343k$1,4835.2%▼ 0.2%
4Lake Havasu City, AZ21$356k$1,5535.2%▼ 1.2%
5Show Low, AZ20$402k$1,7235.1%▼ 2.1%
6Sierra Vista, AZ20$265k$1,2535.7%▼ 4.0%
7Yuma, AZ19$282k$1,4696.3%▼ 2.4%
8Flagstaff, AZ15$633k$2,1234.0%▼ 0.9%

Showing the top 8 scored metros of 10. Unscored metros remain discoverable through the national rankings.

Below the metro line

Largest counties in Arizona

County figures join on the five-digit FIPS code. The table uses measured local values and prints “n/a” wherever a publisher has no record.

CountyPopulationPriceRentYieldHazard
Maricopa County, AZ4,559,748$461k$1,7294.5%inland flooding
Pima County, AZ1,060,490$343k$1,4835.2%inland flooding
Pinal County, AZ469,006$364k$1,8396.1%inland flooding
Yavapai County, AZ245,480$507k$1,8914.5%inland flooding
Mohave County, AZ220,517$356k$1,5535.2%inland flooding
Yuma County, AZ211,741$282k$1,4696.3%earthquake
Coconino County, AZ144,508$633k$2,1234.0%inland flooding
Cochise County, AZ125,566$265k$1,2535.7%inland flooding
Navajo County, AZ108,415$402k$1,7235.1%inland flooding
Apache County, AZ65,341$323kn/an/ainland flooding
Gila County, AZ53,795$392k$1,7455.3%inland flooding
Santa Cruz County, AZ48,926$283k$1,3775.8%inland flooding
County yield sample12/15counties have the rent needed to compute yield
Statewide net migration+17,333IRS tax-return households summed across counties
Median investor share6.0%among counties with HMDA purchase records
Bear case

What can break the thesis

  1. The central rent split may reflect measurement and coverage: Zillow asking rents and Apartment List recent-lease rents do not describe the same inventory.
  2. Year-over-year Zillow rent coverage reaches only eight of Arizona's 10 measured metros, leaving a state-specific gap in the local momentum distribution.
  3. Migration and mover-income data predate the current employment readings, so their apparent disagreement may partly reflect timing rather than durable demand.
  4. Reported gross yields exclude vacancy, repairs, management, insurance, taxes, financing and capital spending, so they are not property cash returns.
  5. County ACS housing measures and FEMA hazard measures are too geographically broad to establish target-rental vacancy, parcel exposure or an insurance cost.
Investor questions

Before underwriting a property

Is Arizona's rental market tightening or weakening?

The direct state measures are mixed: recent-lease rent fell 2.8% and rental time on market increased by 2.3 days, while the rental vacancy index declined by 0.2 percentage points to 8.1%. The packet does not support a single statewide label.

Where does measured rent-price separation look most relevant?

Among the selected examples, Payson, AZ had 3.1% asking-rent growth while home value fell 1.2%, with a 5.3% gross yield. Yuma, AZ had 2.5% rent growth, 1.2% value growth and a 6.3% gross yield. These are market screens, not property returns.

Does household movement confirm current rental demand?

Not by itself. Net migration was positive by 17,333 across 15 counties and inbound adjusted gross income exceeded outbound income, but the median job change across measured metros was a 0.8% decline. The measures also cover different periods.

How much resale-liquidity risk is visible?

The measured metro median was 4.7 months of supply and 57 days on market. Nogales, AZ reached 116 days and 6.4 months of supply, while Phoenix, AZ had shorter marketing at 61 days but price reductions on 32.9% of listings. Exit risk therefore differs by market and by indicator.

What property-level physical risk does the packet establish?

None. FEMA supplies county loss ratios and one mutually exclusive leading-hazard label per county. The 14 inland-flood labels and one earthquake label do not show whether a parcel is exposed or what its insurance will cost.