At the June 2026 endpoint, ZIP 84107’s Zillow ZORI stands at $1,400. This is a typical observed asking-rent index blended across rental types, not a quoted rent for a single unit. The five-digit label is both a Zillow ZIP market identifier and a matched Census ZCTA; a ZCTA is a statistical area and is not identical to a USPS delivery ZIP. The 1-year exact same-month change is -3.1%, the 3-year exact-same-month annualized change is -1.7%, and the 5-year annualized change is +2.3%. Recent contraction therefore breaks from the longer positive path. Annualized monthly-return volatility is 3.7%, maximum drawdown is -6.3%, and coverage is 100%. The high-variability designation warrants less confidence in one date-stamped snapshot. Transparent national discovery ranks among history-eligible ZIPs are 2,861 for momentum, 2,377 for stability, and 2,853 for balanced performance; lower ranks are stronger. These history measures are backward-looking measurements, not forecasts or investment recommendations.
The current index should not be merged with other rent universes. The matched Census ZCTA’s ACS 2024 5-year survey puts median gross rent at $1,445 for occupied renter homes and includes selected utilities. It is a survey median, whereas ZORI is an asking-rent index. The supplied FY2026 HUD FMR/SAFMR two-bedroom figure is $1,494. HUD FMR/SAFMR is an administrative, bedroom-specific standard rather than asking rent, whether sourced as a ZIP SAFMR or a county-derived local ladder. Those scope and utility differences prevent either ACS or HUD from serving as a like-for-like replacement for the June ZORI reading; the gaps should not be interpreted as a property discount or premium.
For size orientation, the supplied local HUD ladder scales the ZIP ZORI into modelled monthly estimates rather than measured bedroom rents. The estimate is $1,013 for a studio, $1,125 for a one-bedroom, $1,874 for a three-bedroom, and $2,225 for a four-bedroom; the two-bedroom estimate is set at the ZIP index baseline. The construction preserves HUD’s local bedroom steps, but it does not observe listings by bedroom, establish a unit’s utility package, or control for lease terms. The results should thus be used only as a transparent modelled ladder around the blended index, not as evidence that a particular bedroom category is available at a stated price.
Affordability signals are mixed. At the current index, a 30% required-income screen produces $56,000 in annual income. That is arithmetic only: it is neither advice nor an applicant qualification rule. The ZCTA’s ACS median household income is $72,108, and the asking-rent-to-income calculation is 23.3%; this all-household benchmark does not describe renter income or any household’s actual budget. In the ACS renter sample, 4,049 of 9,158 renter households report gross-rent burdens of 30% or more, a 44.2% share. Gross rent includes selected utilities, unlike a typical asking-rent index. Burden is an aggregate respondent outcome, so it cannot prove that any particular unit is affordable or that an individual renter will face that burden.
Housing counts show why aggregate conditions need careful reading. The ZCTA has 17,676 housing units, with 16,669 occupied and 1,007 vacant, for a 5.7% overall vacancy rate. Renter-occupied homes account for 54.9% of occupied homes, and the stock spans both single-family and large multifamily structures. The vacancy inventory includes units classified as for rent, but a vacancy category is not a live listing feed, a measure of unit quality, or proof that a suitable property is immediately available. Similarly, renter concentration describes the occupied stock, not the rent, condition, or turnover of an individual home.
Wider geography reinforces that the ZIP reading should be localized. Murray city-context rent is $1,461, Salt Lake County context rent is $1,639, and Salt Lake City, UT metro-context rent is $1,638; all are broader-context measures rather than substitutes for the ZIP index. The comparison places the current ZIP level below each named city, county, and metro figure, but it does not establish why they differ or transfer their household mix, vacancy, HUD standard, or listing composition into this ZIP. City, county, and metro data are context only, while the ZIP/ZCTA evidence retains its own source scope.
The key limitation is not a missing calculation but a mismatch between aggregate benchmarks and a real offering. Property-level review should confirm the address’s ZIP assignment, listing date, advertised versus effective rent after concessions, bedroom count, lease length, utility responsibilities, furnishing status, availability, and any restrictions disclosed by the property. It should also separate a landlord’s current ask from an occupied-home survey median and from HUD’s administrative standard. None of the history, vacancy, burden, or context figures identifies a specific unit’s terms. Does the listing’s documented rent package and unit description actually match the benchmark being used?