Head to head
Bakersfield, CA vs San Francisco, CA
Bakersfield is cheaper — estimated essentials for a single person run about $1,736/mo less, and living comfortably there takes roughly $41,000 less in annual salary (taxes included).
| Metric | Bakersfield63 | San Francisco58 |
|---|---|---|
| Est. monthly cost (single) | $4,129 | $5,865 |
| Est. monthly cost (family of 4, incl. childcare) | $10,022 | $15,429 |
| Salary for comfort | $77,000/yr | $118,000/yr |
| Typical rent | $1,483 | $3,604 |
| Median home value | $347,300 | $1,380,500 |
| Median household income | $77,397 | $141,446 |
| Unemployment | 6.2% | 3.7% |
| Housing score | 65 | 12 |
| Jobs score | 33 | 69 |
| Safety score | 54 | 62 |
| Climate score | 90 | 100 |
| Amenities score | 47 | 85 |
| Population | 408.4K | 836.3K |
| Summer high / winter low | 97° / 39° | 67° / 46° |
Fit scores use the reference profile (single, $6,700/mo gross, default weights). Green marks the better value per row.
Bakersfield, CA
San Francisco, CA