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 $7,500 less in annual salary (taxes included).
| Metric | Aurora51 | Bakersfield63 |
|---|---|---|
| Est. monthly cost (single) | $4,507 | $4,129 |
| Est. monthly cost (family of 4, incl. childcare) | $11,530 | $10,022 |
| Salary for comfort | $84,500/yr | $77,000/yr |
| Typical rent | $2,089 | $1,483 |
| Median home value | $444,500 | $347,300 |
| Median household income | $84,320 | $77,397 |
| Unemployment | 4.2% | 6.2% |
| Housing score | 35 | 65 |
| Jobs score | 40 | 33 |
| Safety score | 30 | 54 |
| Climate score | 74 | 90 |
| Amenities score | 47 | 47 |
| Population | 390.2K | 408.4K |
| Summer high / winter low | 88° / 17° | 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