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 risk13 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

State research brief

Median asking-rent growth exceeds median home-value growth by 1.7 percentage points while median metro employment is down 0.8%, making demand durability and exit liquidity the central screens.

Updated 2026-07-31 · evidence current to the releases listed below.

Across Arizona's 10 measured metros, median home-value growth is 0.4%, while median asking-rent growth is 2.1% among the eight metros with rent-growth data. That income-side advantage is tempered by a median employment change of -0.8% across 10 metros and resale conditions that range from 3.7 to 6.6 months of supply between the 10th and 90th percentiles.

The counter-signal is positive migration: the 15 measured counties recorded net inflow of 17,333 people, or 2.3 per 1,000 residents. Because the migration, employment, rent, supply and county housing measures cover different periods and geographies, they support selective local screening rather than a statewide conclusion. The packet cannot establish achieved rent, occupancy, operating expenses, financing costs, insurance premiums, net operating income or parcel-level hazard exposure.

Median asking-rent growth of 2.1% versus 0.4% home-value growth → verify that property-level achieved rents support the measured income advantage before assuming yield expansion.

Net migration of 17,333 alongside a -0.8% median employment change → require local employer, tenant and leasing evidence rather than treating population inflow as sufficient demand confirmation.

A 3.7-to-6.6-month supply range and 27.3% median price-drop share → build market-specific resale time and negotiation discounts into the acquisition screen.

Median renter burden of 46.8% with county vacancy ranging widely → separate rent-growth potential from tenant payment capacity and distinguish all-unit vacancy from available rentals.

County climate-loss ratios and effective tax rates vary materially → obtain parcel-specific tax, hazard and insurance inputs before comparing net returns.

Price and rent momentum

Rent growth has a 1.7-point lead over home values

Median asking-rent growth is 2.1%, compared with 0.4% median home-value growth. The difference between those medians is 1.7 percentage points. Rent growth runs from 0.5% to 2.8% between the 10th and 90th percentiles, while value growth spans -1.7% to 2.2%. Rent growth is measured in eight metros, versus 10 for values.

Payson shows the sharpest highlighted separation: rent is up 3.1% while value is down 1.2%, a calculated 4.2-percentage-point spread. Show Low has 2.7% rent growth against 0.7% value growth, and Yuma has 2.5% against 1.2%. These are asking-rent and modeled-value signals, not proof that a specific property can renew tenants at those rates.

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

Employment and household movement

Positive migration conflicts with a negative median employment reading

The median employment change across 10 measured metros is -0.8%, with a 10th-to-90th-percentile range of -2.6% to 0.7%. The highlighted readings are positive in Nogales at 1.1%, Payson at 0.6% and Phoenix at 0.2%, showing why the negative median should not be assigned to every market.

County migration points the other way: 171,163 people moved in and 153,830 moved out, producing net migration of 17,333 across 15 counties, or 2.3 per 1,000 residents. This is a genuine demand counter-signal, but the migration data cover an earlier period than the current employment measures. It cannot confirm present leasing velocity or identify which local rental segments received the inflow.

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

Supply and resale conditions

Nogales carries the slowest highlighted exit while Phoenix shows more price cuts

Measured metros have a median 4.7 months of supply and 57 days on market. The 10th-to-90th-percentile ranges are 3.7 to 6.6 months and 39.1 to 78.2 days. The median price-drop share is 27.3%, while the median sale-to-list ratio is 98.0%, indicating that exit assumptions should include both marketing time and negotiation.

Nogales has 6.4 months of supply and 116 days on market, with a 21.2% price-drop share. Phoenix has less supply at 3.5 months and a shorter 61-day marketing period, but a higher 32.9% price-drop share. Yuma records 5.4 months, 74 days and a 13.8% price-drop share. Those combinations describe different resale frictions; they do not establish future liquidity. Permits also measure authorized units rather than completed rental competition.

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

Entry cost and affordability

Higher gross yields do not remove tenant affordability limits

The measured metro medians are a $349,384 home value, $1,602 monthly asking rent and 5.3% gross yield. Gross yields run from 4.6% to 6.3% between the 10th and 90th percentiles. Median rent equals 29.7% of median income, with a 25.0% to 35.2% range, while asking rents are 112.2% of HUD two-bedroom Fair Market Rent at the median.

Safford pairs a $309,370 value and $1,651 rent with a 6.4% gross yield, but its rent-to-income measure is still 29.4%. Yuma combines a lower $281,511 value with a 6.3% yield and a 4.48 price-to-income ratio. Sierra Vista has the lowest highlighted entry value at $264,812 and a 4.43 price-to-income ratio, but its gross yield is lower at 5.7%. Gross yield excludes vacancy, maintenance, taxes, insurance, management and financing, so the ranking is not a net-return ranking.

Evidence: Census ACS 5-year — household income · HUD Fair Market Rents — Section 8 standard · Zillow ZHVI — metro home values · Zillow ZORI — metro market rents

Housing stock and tenant conditions

High renter burden coexists with sharply different vacancy profiles

Across 15 counties, the median all-unit vacancy rate is 16.3%, but the 10th-to-90th-percentile range is wide at 9.2% to 29.1%. The median renter share is 27.9%. Meanwhile, a median 46.8% of renters are burdened at the 30%-or-more threshold, with county readings ranging from 25.8% to 52.2% between the 10th and 90th percentiles.

Pima County has 53.2% renter burden and 8.8% vacancy, while Maricopa County has 52.6% burden and 8.2% vacancy. Coconino County combines 51.6% burden with 22.0% vacancy and a 40.3% renter share. The coexistence of high burden and high county-wide vacancy shows why all-unit vacancy cannot be treated as available long-term rental inventory or as evidence of rent headroom.

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

Physical risk and property tax

County tax and hazard measures can materially alter the expense screen

The median county climate-loss ratio is 0.21%, with a 10th-to-90th-percentile range of 0.17% to 0.34%. The median effective property-tax rate is 0.51%, and the corresponding percentile range is 0.42% to 0.68%; median tax is $1,333. Among the highlighted counties, loss ratios are 0.36% in La Paz County, 0.35% in Gila County and 0.33% in Coconino County.

Apache County has a 0.90% effective property-tax rate, Pima County 0.71% and La Paz County 0.64%. FEMA assigns inland flood as the mutually exclusive leading-hazard label for 14 counties and earthquake for one. Those labels organize county screening only: they do not show parcel exposure, expected insurance premiums or whether a specific building is insurable on acceptable terms.

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

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?

Employment and household movementDo jobs, household movement and mover income point in the same direction?

Supply and resale conditionsWhat do permits, inventory, marketing time and price cuts say about pressure?

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

County evidence coverageEvery gap stays visible as missing—not estimated

Highest measured metro gross yieldsscreening metric only · before expenses and financing

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.

#	Metro	Score	Price	Rent	Yield	Jobs
1	Payson, AZ	38	$392k	$1,745	5.3%	▲ 0.6%
2	Phoenix, AZ	36	$447k	$1,733	4.7%	▲ 0.2%
3	Tucson, AZ	28	$343k	$1,483	5.2%	▼ 0.2%
4	Lake Havasu City, AZ	21	$356k	$1,553	5.2%	▼ 1.2%
5	Show Low, AZ	20	$402k	$1,723	5.1%	▼ 2.1%
6	Sierra Vista, AZ	20	$265k	$1,253	5.7%	▼ 4.0%
7	Yuma, AZ	19	$282k	$1,469	6.3%	▼ 2.4%
8	Flagstaff, AZ	15	$633k	$2,123	4.0%	▼ 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.

County	Population	Price	Rent	Yield	Hazard
Maricopa County, AZ	4,559,748	$461k	$1,729	4.5%	inland flooding
Pima County, AZ	1,060,490	$343k	$1,483	5.2%	inland flooding
Pinal County, AZ	469,006	$364k	$1,839	6.1%	inland flooding
Yavapai County, AZ	245,480	$507k	$1,891	4.5%	inland flooding
Mohave County, AZ	220,517	$356k	$1,553	5.2%	inland flooding
Yuma County, AZ	211,741	$282k	$1,469	6.3%	earthquake
Coconino County, AZ	144,508	$633k	$2,123	4.0%	inland flooding
Cochise County, AZ	125,566	$265k	$1,253	5.7%	inland flooding
Navajo County, AZ	108,415	$402k	$1,723	5.1%	inland flooding
Apache County, AZ	65,341	$323k	n/a	n/a	inland flooding
Gila County, AZ	53,795	$392k	$1,745	5.3%	inland flooding
Santa Cruz County, AZ	48,926	$283k	$1,377	5.8%	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

Published city evidence

Go from Arizona to a city record

These links exist only where an official Census place, direct city price and rent series, and a checked city brief are all available.

City · AZPhoenix$410k home · $1,569 rent · 4.6% yield City · AZTucson$326k home · $1,425 rent · 5.3% yield City · AZMesa$435k home · $1,549 rent · 4.3% yield City · AZGilbert$572k home · $2,019 rent · 4.2% yield City · AZChandler$522k home · $1,903 rent · 4.4% yield City · AZGlendale$407k home · $1,524 rent · 4.5% yield City · AZScottsdale$858k home · $2,173 rent · 3.0% yield City · AZPeoria$486k home · $1,876 rent · 4.6% yield City · AZTempe$468k home · $1,667 rent · 4.3% yield City · AZYuma$298k home · $1,473 rent · 5.9% yield City · AZFlagstaff$666k home · $2,117 rent · 3.8% yield

Sources used in this analysis

Measured releases, not a global source count

Only sources supporting the selected evidence modules are listed here.

Bear case

What can break the thesis

Rent growth is based on asking rents and is available for only eight of the 10 measured metros; concessions, turnover and achieved renewals could weaken the apparent advantage.
Migration covers an earlier period than current employment and housing measures, so the positive inflow may not describe present demand.
Gross yields omit vacancy, repairs, capital spending, management, taxes, insurance and financing, any of which could reverse the headline ranking.
Metro and county distributions use different geographies, and county-wide ACS vacancy is not a direct measure of available long-term rental inventory.
FEMA leading-hazard labels and county loss ratios do not establish parcel-level exposure, building condition, insurance availability or premiums.

Investor questions

Before underwriting a property

Is rent growth broad enough to support higher underwriting rents?

The eight measured metro rent-growth readings have a 10th-to-90th-percentile range of 0.5% to 2.8%, with a 2.1% median. That supports further local rent validation, not an automatic increase to achieved-rent assumptions.

Does household movement confirm current rental demand?

Not by itself. The 15 measured counties recorded net migration of 17,333, but median metro employment is down 0.8% and the datasets cover different periods.

Where do the highlighted resale conditions show the most friction?

Nogales shows the longest highlighted marketing period at 116 days with 6.4 months of supply. Phoenix has a shorter 61-day period and 3.5 months of supply, but a larger 32.9% price-drop share.

Which highlighted markets combine lower entry cost with stronger gross yield?

Yuma has a $281,511 value and 6.3% gross yield. Safford has a higher $309,370 value and 6.4% yield, while Sierra Vista has a lower $264,812 value but a 5.7% yield. None of these figures includes operating or financing costs.

Can the county hazard data price insurance risk?

No. The county loss ratios and leading-hazard labels can identify areas for additional review, but they cannot determine parcel exposure, coverage availability or the premium for a specific property.