Head to head
Aurora, CO vs Bakersfield, CA
Bakersfield is cheaper — estimated essentials for a single person run about $378/mo less, and living comfortably there takes roughly $8,500 less in annual salary (taxes included).
| Metric | Aurora59 | Bakersfield63 |
|---|---|---|
| Est. monthly cost (single) | $4,214 | $3,836 |
| Salary for comfort | $79,500/yr | $71,000/yr |
| Typical rent | $1,830 | $1,500 |
| Median home value | $444,500 | $347,300 |
| Median household income | $84,320 | $77,397 |
| Unemployment | 4.2% | 7.5% |
| Housing score | 34 | 55 |
| Jobs score | 53 | 27 |
| Safety score | 62 | 73 |
| Climate score | 76 | 90 |
| Amenities score | 28 | 26 |
| Population | 390.2K | 408.4K |
| Summer high / winter low | 89° / 18° | 97° / 39° |
Fit scores use the reference profile (single, $6,700/mo gross, default weights). Green marks the better value per row.
Aurora, CO
Bakersfield, CA