Connecticut rental market data

State research brief

The five-metro medians show home-value growth exceeding rent growth by 2.38 percentage points, while Connecticut’s nine-area migration total remained negative despite slight job growth.

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

Across five measured metros, median home-value growth was 5.25% and median asking-rent growth was 2.87%; the packet’s rent-minus-price spread was therefore negative 2.38 percentage points. Median gross yield was 5.44%, while the median price-to-income ratio was 4.7. For-sale conditions remained firm at a median 2.5 months of supply and a 102.97% sale-to-list ratio, so acquisition pricing and rental-income momentum are not sending the same signal.

Demand evidence is also mixed. Median metro job growth was 0.33%, but the nine measured areas recorded net migration of negative 5,674 people, or negative 1.57 per 1,000 residents. A genuine counter-signal is that aggregate inbound mover income exceeded outbound mover income by $20,155. Screening should separate resale competition, achievable rent and local tenant depth rather than treating any one measure as statewide demand. Connecticut coverage stops at five metros and nine planning regions; it does not provide neighborhood demand, achieved leases, property condition, operating expenses or parcel-level hazard exposure.

01

5.25% median home-value growth versus 2.87% median rent growth → underwrite rental income separately from value momentum

02

Negative 5,674 net migration alongside 0.33% median job growth and a positive $20,155 mover-income gap → verify demand at the property catchment rather than assigning one statewide direction

03

2.5 months of median supply and a 102.97% sale-to-list ratio, but 18.68% price drops → expect acquisition competition and selective repricing to coexist

04

51.87% median renter cost burden across nine planning regions → test rent assumptions against local income capacity

05

A 1.42% to 2.0% property-tax-rate range and inland flood as every area’s leading hazard label → obtain property-specific tax and hazard inputs before relying on headline yield

01

Price and rent momentum

Values are gaining faster than rents in every named momentum example

The median home-value gain of 5.25% exceeded the median rent gain of 2.87%. The 10th-to-90th percentile range was 3.65% to 6.18% for values and 2.0% to 4.08% for rents. That combination supports value momentum but not equivalent growth in rental revenue.

The same separation appears in the named metros. Norwich paired 6.58% value growth with 4.76% rent growth, Hartford paired 5.25% with 3.07%, and Bridgeport paired 5.57% with 2.87%. Bridgeport also combined the highest listed rent, $2,870, with the lowest gross yield of the three, 4.92%; Norwich and Hartford showed 5.44% and 5.94%, respectively. These are metro-level screens, not property returns.

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

02

Employment and household movement

Slight payroll gains do not erase net out-migration

Job growth across the five measured metros had a 0.33% median, with a 10th-to-90th percentile range from negative 1.56% to 0.62%. Among the named markets, Norwich recorded 0.78%, Bridgeport 0.37% and Hartford 0.33%. Employment therefore ranged from contraction to modest expansion rather than showing uniform strength.

Movement data point the other way in aggregate: 82,972 people moved in and 88,646 moved out, producing net migration of negative 5,674. Aggregate inbound mover income nevertheless exceeded outbound mover income by $20,155. Jobs, population movement and mover income do not align cleanly, so the packet cannot establish whether a specific rental catchment gained or lost its target tenant pool.

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

03

Supply and resale conditions

Tight resale medians mask a slower Torrington

The five-metro medians indicate limited resale slack: 2.5 months of supply, 32 days on market and a 102.97% sale-to-list ratio. At the same time, 18.68% of listings had price drops. Permit intensity also varied, with the 10th-to-90th percentile spanning 1.14 to 2.31 units per 1,000 residents; permits do not establish completed future supply.

Torrington is the clearest counter-signal. It had 55 days on market, 3.2 months of supply and price drops on 21.25% of listings, although its sale-to-list ratio still stood at 100.66%. That combination suggests more time and visible repricing than the metro median, but it does not establish liquidity for a particular property type or price band.

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

04

Entry cost and affordability

New Haven’s yield edge comes with a heavier income load

The five-metro median was a $433,152 home value, $2,013 monthly rent and 5.44% gross yield. Gross yields ran from 5.07% at the 10th percentile to 6.13% at the 90th. Median rent equaled 27.41% of median household income, while the median price-to-income ratio was 4.7.

Among the named yield screens, New Haven combined a 6.26% gross yield with rent equal to 29.44% of median income. Hartford showed a 5.94% yield and 25.4% rent-to-income ratio; Norwich showed 5.44% and 27.41%. New Haven’s higher headline yield therefore does not equal greater tenant affordability. None of these gross yields accounts for vacancy, maintenance, taxes, insurance, financing or capital work.

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

05

Housing stock and tenant conditions

Bridgeport-area rent burden contrasts with Northwest Hills vacancy

Across nine measured planning regions, the median area-wide vacancy rate was 6.46%, the median renter share was 33.59%, and 51.87% of renter households were cost-burdened. The median housing vintage was 1969. Those figures flag affordability and potential property-condition questions, but they do not identify the condition or occupancy of an individual building.

Greater Bridgeport Planning Region had a 5.08% vacancy rate, a 34.73% renter share and a 58.68% rent-burden rate; its median housing vintage was 1959. Northwest Hills Planning Region had a much higher 14.18% vacancy rate, but renters represented only 23.71% of households and single-family homes represented 79.23% of stock. That mix prevents treating the area-wide vacancy rate as available rental inventory.

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

06

Physical risk and property tax

Taxes vary even though inland flood leads every area’s hazard label

The median effective property-tax rate across nine measured areas was 1.67%, with a 10th-to-90th percentile range of 1.42% to 2.0%; the median tax was $6,357. Greater Bridgeport Planning Region showed a 2.02% rate and $8,670 median tax, while Northwest Hills Planning Region showed 1.67% and $5,593. These area measures can materially change an expense screen but are not property-specific bills.

The median FEMA climate-loss ratio was 0.17%, with a 10th-to-90th percentile range of 0.15% to 0.18%. Inland flood was the mutually exclusive leading-hazard label for all nine measured areas. That uniform label does not mean every parcel has flood exposure, and the packet supplies neither parcel flood zones nor insurance quotes.

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

Evidence selected for Connecticut

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 distribution5 scored metros · median 48.0

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 Connecticut

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	Norwich, CT	64	$436k	$1,978	5.4%	▲ 0.8%
2	Hartford, CT	57	$407k	$2,013	5.9%	▲ 0.3%
3	Bridgeport, CT	48	$700k	$2,870	4.9%	▲ 0.4%
4	New Haven, CT	45	$415k	$2,164	6.3%	▼ 0.1%
5	Torrington, CT	32	$433k	$1,912	5.3%	▼ 2.5%

Below the metro line

Largest counties in Connecticut

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
Capitol Planning Region, CT	977,290	n/a	n/a	n/a	inland flooding
Western Connecticut Planning Region, CT	627,071	n/a	n/a	n/a	inland flooding
South Central Connecticut Planning Region, CT	570,598	n/a	n/a	n/a	inland flooding
Naugatuck Valley Planning Region, CT	454,969	n/a	n/a	n/a	inland flooding
Greater Bridgeport Planning Region, CT	329,259	n/a	n/a	n/a	inland flooding
Southeastern Connecticut Planning Region, CT	279,971	n/a	n/a	n/a	inland flooding
Lower Connecticut River Valley Planning Region, CT	175,822	n/a	n/a	n/a	inland flooding
Northwest Hills Planning Region, CT	113,216	n/a	n/a	n/a	inland flooding
Northeastern Connecticut Planning Region, CT	96,312	n/a	n/a	n/a	inland flooding

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

Connecticut coverage is limited to five metros and nine planning regions, so metro and area medians can conceal neighborhood and property-type differences.
The source releases are not temporally aligned; migration, housing-stock, employment and listing measures may describe different market windows.
Asking rents, home values and gross yields do not establish achieved rent or net operating income.
Area-wide vacancy and median housing vintage do not identify rentable availability, building condition or required capital work.
FEMA loss ratios and leading-hazard labels are area-level measures, not parcel exposure or insurance-cost evidence.

Investor questions

Before underwriting a property

Are Connecticut rents keeping pace with home values?

Not at the measured metro median. Home values grew 5.25% while rents grew 2.87%, a 2.38 percentage-point shortfall for rent growth.

Does the demand evidence show clear expansion?

No. Median metro job growth was positive at 0.33%, but net migration was negative 5,674. Aggregate mover income was a counter-signal, with inbound income exceeding outbound income by $20,155.

Are resale conditions equally tight in every named metro?

No. The five-metro median was 32 days on market and 2.5 months of supply, while Torrington had 55 days and 3.2 months, with price drops on 21.25% of listings.

Which named yield market has the strongest headline gross yield?

New Haven at 6.26%, compared with Hartford at 5.94% and Norwich at 5.44%. New Haven also had the highest rent-to-income ratio of those three at 29.44%.

Does the inland-flood label establish exposure for a specific property?

No. Inland flood is the mutually exclusive leading-hazard label for each of the nine measured areas, but the packet has no parcel flood-zone or insurance evidence.