Head to head
Lancaster, CA vs Stockton, CA
Stockton is cheaper — estimated essentials for a single person run about $66/mo less, and living comfortably there takes roughly $1,500 less in annual salary (taxes included).
It flips for a family. For two adults with a pre-schooler and a school-age child, Lancaster is the cheaper of the two — rent scales to household size using each city's own bedroom spread, and childcare varies even more sharply between cities than rent does.
| Metric | Lancaster53 | Stockton50 |
|---|---|---|
| Est. monthly cost (single) | $4,446 | $4,380 |
| Est. monthly cost (family of 4, incl. childcare) | $10,586 | $10,602 |
| Salary for comfort | $84,500/yr | $83,000/yr |
| Typical rent | $1,696 | $1,742 |
| Median home value | $409,100 | $412,900 |
| Median household income | $76,083 | $76,851 |
| Unemployment | 7.2% | 6.7% |
| Housing score | 42 | 40 |
| Jobs score | 12 | 10 |
| Safety score | 40 | 25 |
| Climate score | 88 | 98 |
| Amenities score | 64 | 48 |
| Population | 170K | 320.5K |
| Summer high / winter low | 98° / 31° | 93° / 38° |
Fit scores use the reference profile (single, $6,700/mo gross, default weights). Green marks the better value per row.
Lancaster, CA
Stockton, CA