Head to head
Bakersfield, CA vs Tulsa, OK
Tulsa is cheaper — estimated essentials for a single person run about $1,478/mo less, and living comfortably there takes roughly $34,000 less in annual salary (taxes included).
| Metric | Bakersfield57 | Tulsa60 |
|---|---|---|
| Est. monthly cost (single) | $4,920 | $3,442 |
| Est. monthly cost (household of 4) | $9,823 | $6,571 |
| Salary for comfort | $96,000/yr | $62,000/yr |
| Typical rent | $1,483 | $1,217 |
| Median home value | $347,300 | $189,600 |
| Median household income | $77,397 | $58,407 |
| Unemployment | 5.4% | 4.7% |
| Housing score | 67 | 80 |
| Jobs score | 32 | 18 |
| Safety score | 54 | 20 |
| Climate score | 90 | 98 |
| Amenities score | 47 | 53 |
| Population | 408.4K | 412.3K |
| Summer high / winter low | 97° / 37° | 93° / 28° |
Fit scores use the reference profile (single, $6,700/mo gross, default weights). Green marks the better value per row.
Bakersfield, CA
Tulsa, OK