Head to head
Bakersfield, CA vs Los Angeles, CA
Bakersfield is cheaper — estimated essentials for a single person run about $1,102/mo less, and living comfortably there takes roughly $26,000 less in annual salary (taxes included).
| Metric | Bakersfield57 | Los Angeles47 |
|---|---|---|
| Est. monthly cost (single) | $4,920 | $6,022 |
| Est. monthly cost (household of 4) | $9,823 | $11,266 |
| Salary for comfort | $96,000/yr | $122,000/yr |
| Typical rent | $1,483 | $2,903 |
| Median home value | $347,300 | $879,500 |
| Median household income | $77,397 | $80,366 |
| Unemployment | 5.4% | 5.3% |
| Housing score | 67 | 2 |
| Jobs score | 32 | 25 |
| Safety score | 54 | 47 |
| Climate score | 90 | 100 |
| Amenities score | 47 | 100 |
| Population | 408.4K | 3.9M |
| Summer high / winter low | 97° / 37° | 89° / 47° |
Fit scores use the reference profile (single, $6,700/mo gross, default weights). Green marks the better value per row.
Bakersfield, CA
Los Angeles, CA