At $2,583 in June 2026, Zillow’s ZIP-level ZORI places 94605 in a soft near-term position: its typical observed asking-rent index, blended across rental types, was 2.5% below the same month a year earlier. Oakland city context is $2,614, Alameda County context is $2,895, and San Francisco-Oakland-Berkeley, CA metro context is $3,301; each is a wider-geography comparison, not a substitute for this ZIP market. The $103,320 annual income produced by a 30% rent-to-income screen sits just below the matched area’s $106,068 median household income. That arithmetic puts current asking rent at 29.2% of median income, but it neither advises a budget nor determines an applicant’s qualification. The immediate tension is that a ZIP near the headline income screen has nevertheless moved lower in the latest year.
The 94605 label is both Zillow’s ZIP market identifier and a match to a Census ZCTA, but a ZCTA is a statistical area and is not identical to a USPS delivery ZIP. In the ACS 2024 five-year survey, occupied renter homes in the matched ZCTA had median gross rent of $1,902, including selected utilities. That survey measure is 35.8% below current ZORI, a difference that does not establish an error because ZORI tracks asking rents while ACS describes occupied renter households over a multiyear survey period. HUD’s supplied two-bedroom FMR/SAFMR standard is $3,604, and ZORI is 71.7% of that administrative benchmark. HUD is bedroom-specific and administrative, not an asking-rent observation or a rental comp.
The bedroom ladder is useful for organizing an asking-rent screen, but every value here is a modelled estimate rather than a measured bedroom rent. Scaling ZIP ZORI by the local HUD ladder produces estimated monthly levels of $1,781 for a studio, $2,134 for a one-bedroom, $2,583 for a two-bedroom, $3,300 for a three-bedroom, and $3,420 for a four-bedroom. The two-bedroom figure aligns mechanically with the ZIP ZORI anchor; it does not verify that actual available two-bedroom homes rent at that amount. The larger step into the three-bedroom estimate reflects the supplied HUD ladder’s relative shape. A listing’s condition, utilities, lease structure, timing, and unit characteristics can therefore diverge substantially from these modelled figures.
History breaks the longer upward path rather than confirming it. The one-year exact same-month annualized change was negative 2.5%, while the three-year measure was positive 0.8% and the five-year measure was positive 2.5%. Thus, the recent decline follows positive multiyear comparisons, not a continuous long-run contraction. History coverage is 100%, supporting completeness of the available ZIP series, but it does not make the current index a precise quote for any particular home. Annualized monthly-return variability of 3.6% indicates meaningful movement around the trend, so readers should place less confidence in one current rent snapshot than in the broader direction. The maximum drawdown reached 4.2%, showing a historically observed setback of limited but material size. Supplied transparent national discovery ranks span 2,336 to 2,779 across momentum, stability, and balanced measures, where lower rank is stronger; these are backward-looking discovery measures, not forecasts or investment recommendations.
The ACS housing profile gives the affordability screen an important distributional counterweight. Of 17,618 housing units in the matched ZCTA, 6,154 were renter occupied, making renters 37.1% of occupied households. The overall vacancy rate was 5.8%, and 540 vacant units were classified as for rent. Those figures describe the area’s surveyed stock and do not prove availability, lease terms, or condition for a particular unit. Rent burden was widespread in the renter survey population: 3,597 households paid at least 30% of income toward rent, equal to 58.4% of renter households. That share is higher than the Oakland city-context burden share, reinforcing that a ZIP-level median-income screen can look near threshold while many occupied renter households still experience material burden. ACS burden also cannot establish the finances of a new tenant or a specific address.
Redfin supplies a separate and direct rolling-three-month ZIP resale observation, not rental transactions. Its median sold price was $759,828, down 5.0% year over year, with 93 homes sold and a median 32 days on market. Reported inventory stood at 95 homes, while months of supply was 3.1. Sale-to-list evidence remained firm within this for-sale universe: the average sale-to-list ratio was 103.0%, and 57.8% of sales closed above list. Taken together, those resale signals create a mixed liquidity picture. The sold-price decline confirms the softer recent direction seen in the rent index, yet limited supply and above-list outcomes challenge any simple reading that a lower median sold price alone signals weak transaction demand. Neither set of resale statistics supplies rental comparables or property operating economics.
Annualized ZIP ZORI divided by Redfin’s median sold price produces a 4.1% cross-source screening ratio. It is only a screening ratio linking an asking-rent index to a resale median; it is not a cap rate, net return, expected return, or property yield. The resale median fell more sharply than the asking-rent index over the latest year, which can make this mechanical ratio appear more favorable even while asking-rent direction is negative. That is the central decision tension: the income screen is near its arithmetic threshold and the longer rent history remains positive, but recent asking-rent movement is negative, renter burden is elevated, and resale pricing has also declined. Tight resale supply and sale-to-list signals provide a counterpoint, not a resolution, because they describe transactions for homes sold rather than lease outcomes.
ZIP evidence is best treated as a bounded screening record. ZORI cannot identify the achievable asking rent for an individual home; ACS cannot identify a current vacancy; HUD standards cannot establish market rent; and Redfin cannot determine a rental transaction, operating expense, or individual resale outcome. Before applying these figures to an address, the record needs current same-bedroom asking listings, signed-lease evidence where available, utility treatment, concessions, parking or other recurring charges, exact bedroom and bathroom configuration, usable condition, and the relevant HUD standard for the property’s location. It also needs confirmation that the home is actually available and that any observed resale listing matches the property type being evaluated. Which of those address-level facts would most change the interpretation of the current ZIP screen?