Pittsburgh's typical home costs $241,000. Naperville's typical home costs $629,000 — nearly three times as much. If home price were the whole story, Pittsburgh would be the clear affordability winner. But Pittsburgh's median household income is $54,042, while Naperville's is $150,937. Once you divide one by the other, Naperville's ratio is actually a little better than Pittsburgh's. The cheaper home isn't automatically the more affordable one, and this article shows exactly why — using real, current figures for both cities rather than a hypothetical example.
Two measurements, two different questions
WhereAtHome uses the Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI) as its headline home-value figure. ZHVI is a smoothed, seasonally adjusted measure built from the 35th-to-65th-percentile range of the housing stock — Zillow's own ZHVI methodology page describes it as representing the typical home, not just homes that recently sold. That makes it less noisy than a raw median sale price, which can swing month to month just because a different mix of homes happened to sell. The Census Bureau's Median Home Value from the American Community Survey is a useful second reference point, but it lags 1–2 years behind ZHVI's monthly updates.
Neither number is affordability. Both describe the asset. Affordability only shows up once you compare a home value to what the people living there actually earn.
Naperville: an expensive home with a decent ratio
Naperville's $629,000 typical home value is well above the $410,800 national benchmark — expensive by any national comparison. But Naperville's median household income of $150,937 is more than double the national figure too. Divide home value by income and you get a 4.17x multiple. That's not cheap in absolute terms, but it's a workable ratio precisely because income kept pace with price.
Pittsburgh: a "cheap" home that isn't as affordable as it looks
Pittsburgh's $241,000 typical home value looks like an easy affordability win next to Naperville's. But Pittsburgh's median household income is $54,042 — well below the national benchmark. Divide the two and Pittsburgh's multiple is 4.46x, slightly worse than Naperville's. A home costing a third of Naperville's doesn't automatically mean it's easier to afford once local pay is factored in.
This is why WhereAtHome's own component scores treat these as separate questions. Pittsburgh's housing-affordability component (comparing $241,000 to the national benchmark) scores a strong 85.2. But its income-vs-housing component — comparing that price to Pittsburgh's own income — scores only about 61.8. The city looks more affordable nationally than it does locally.
San Francisco: when the ratio tells the whole story
San Francisco removes any ambiguity. Its typical home value is about $1.4 million, and its median household income of roughly $137,000 is genuinely high — well above the national benchmark on its own. But $1,400,000 divided by $137,000 is a 10.22x multiple, more than double Naperville's or Pittsburgh's. No income level in this dataset is high enough to fully offset a home value that far above the national norm. High income and high home value can both be true, and the ratio can still say "expensive" — because it is.
The full ranking across ten cities
Sorted from the lowest (most favorable) multiple to the highest:
| City | Typical home value | Median household income | Home value ÷ income |
|---|---|---|---|
| Liberal, KS | $147,432 | $55,602 | 2.65x |
| Des Moines, IA | $212,000 | $61,000 | 3.48x |
| Naperville, IL | $629,000 | $150,937 | 4.17x |
| Pittsburgh, PA | $241,000 | $54,042 | 4.46x |
| El Paso, TX | $238,000 | $50,246 | 4.74x |
| Austin, TX | $504,000 | $91,461 | 5.51x |
| Denver, CO | $533,000 | $86,000 | 6.20x |
| Seattle, WA | $851,000 | $111,000 | 7.67x |
| Boston, MA | $788,000 | $82,000 | 9.61x |
| San Francisco, CA | $1,400,000 | $137,000 | 10.22x |
Read down the "typical home value" column and the order looks nothing like the ratio order — Naperville's $629,000 home sits above four cheaper-looking cities once income is factored in. That's the entire point of running the division.
The middle of this table tells its own story. Austin's $504,000 typical home and $91,461 income produce a 5.51x multiple; Denver's higher $533,000 value against a lower $86,000 income lands at 6.20x despite a smaller home-price gap. Seattle (7.67x) and Boston (9.61x) both combine high home values with high — but not proportionally high enough — incomes to pull their multiples well above the cities at the top of the table. None of these are "wrong" places to live; the ratio simply tells you how much of the local paycheck a typical home is likely to consume, which is a different question than whether the city is otherwise a good fit.
Why WhereAtHome scores this as two separate components
The WhereAtHome Score keeps these as two distinct 20%-weighted components rather than blending them into one: housing measures a home value against the national benchmark, and income_housing measures it against local income. A city can score well on one and poorly on the other, exactly like Naperville and Pittsburgh above. Reading the component breakdown for any city tells you which question is driving its score — expensive relative to the country, or expensive relative to what its own residents earn.
What the ratio still doesn't capture
A home-value-to-income multiple is a screening tool, not a mortgage calculator. It says nothing about your down payment, interest rate, property taxes, insurance, HOA dues, or maintenance reserve — all of which the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's home-budget guidance treats as part of the real monthly cost of owning. It also uses a citywide median income, not your household's income, and a citywide typical home value, not the specific house or neighborhood you'd actually buy in. Two households earning the same income in the same city can face very different real affordability depending on their down payment, credit, and the specific homes they're considering.
Renting changes the comparison again. A high home-value-to-income multiple can make buying difficult in a city while renting stays entirely reasonable, especially in places where a large share of the housing stock is rented rather than owned. If you're not planning to buy soon, the multiple is still a useful signal about how competitive and expensive that city's ownership market is — and, indirectly, about upward pressure on rents — but it isn't the number to base a rental budget on directly.
Put it to work
Use the city comparison tool to check the home-value-to-income ratio for any two cities you're weighing, and read our guide to cost of living by city to see how the rest of the household budget — not just housing — shifts alongside it. A cheap-looking home is worth a second look at local income before you call it affordable; an expensive-looking one deserves the same courtesy before you rule it out.
