Top 100 Cities by Housing Affordability (Price-to-Income Ratio), 2025

Reading the price-to-income ratio in cities (2025 snapshot)

The price-to-income ratio compares a typical home price in a city to a typical annual household income. It is commonly interpreted as “how many years of income” it would take to buy a home at the typical price. Lower values imply greater affordability; higher values imply that ownership is more disconnected from local earnings.

Top 10 least affordable cities by price-to-income ratio (2025)

The Top 10 is dominated by markets where housing prices have risen far faster than typical incomes, often alongside supply constraints, rapid urban demand growth, and credit dynamics that re-price housing faster than wages adjust.

Table 1 — Top 10 least affordable cities (2025)

Chart 1 — Top 10 least affordable cities (higher ratio = less affordable)

What tends to push the ratio higher

The ratio rises when housing prices outpace household incomes. In many cities, prices react quickly to credit conditions, investor demand, and supply constraints, while incomes adjust more slowly. Once a market moves into a high-ratio regime, it can remain “sticky” because land constraints, planning bottlenecks, and job clustering do not disappear quickly.

Demand composition matters as well. Cities with strong roles in finance, technology, migration, or “safe asset” demand can attract buyers whose purchasing power is only weakly connected to the local wage distribution. In those cases, the price-to-income ratio becomes less about average local earnings and more about how housing is priced relative to mobile capital.

Methodology

There is no single official global table that publishes a harmonised city-level price-to-income ratio for hundreds of cities. For this 2025 snapshot, the ranking uses the Property Prices Index by City (2025) dataset from Numbeo, focusing on the Price to Income Ratio field. The ratio is presented as a multiple of annual income (×) and is shown at one decimal place.

To keep the page useful for comparison, the ranking is ordered from the highest ratio (least affordable) to the lowest ratio within the Top 100 list. The metric is best treated as a screening indicator: it quickly signals whether ownership costs are likely to dominate budgets relative to typical local earnings.

Limitations are important. City-level datasets can differ in how “price” and “income” are proxied, and market composition (apartment size/quality, neighbourhood mix) can shift results. The ratio also does not capture mortgage interest rates, taxes, down payment constraints, household wealth, distributional inequality, or commuting trade-offs. For deeper analysis, pair the ratio with official house price indices, income trends, and housing cost burden measures.

Insights from the Top 100 distribution

The Top 100 is highly concentrated in the mid-to-high teens: 57 cities fall between 13× and 17×, while the “extreme” tail above 20× includes 28 cities. The median for the Top 100 is ≈ 16×, which helps separate routine affordability stress from truly exceptional disconnects between prices and incomes.

Regional patterns in the Top 100 are uneven. Asia carries a high share of the extreme end, with a regional median of ≈ 27.3× in this list. Europe’s median is ≈ 15.2× and the Americas’ median is ≈ 16.0×. These medians are computed from the Top 100 list and therefore reflect the most stressed markets rather than “typical” cities globally.

What this means for readers

For relocation planning, the ratio is a fast way to anticipate whether housing will be the dominant cost pressure. A city can be expensive in absolute terms yet relatively manageable if incomes are also high; conversely, a city with lower headline prices can be less affordable if typical earnings are much lower.

For household budgeting, a high ratio often translates into higher leverage needs, longer saving horizons, or heavier reliance on transfers and family support. For market monitoring, a persistently elevated ratio can indicate structural scarcity and stronger sensitivity to interest-rate shocks.

FAQ

Is a lower price-to-income ratio always “better”?

Lower ratios generally imply greater affordability, but they do not automatically mean higher quality of life. Cities with low ratios can still have high rent burdens, long commutes, weaker job markets, or limited housing quality. Use the ratio as one input, not a full scorecard.

Why can some cities look extreme even if prices have cooled recently?

Ratios can stay high when incomes lag behind prices over long periods. Even if prices stop rising, affordability may not improve quickly unless incomes catch up or housing supply expands enough to compress prices.

Does the ratio reflect mortgages and interest rates?

No. The ratio compares price levels to income levels. It does not include mortgage rates, down payments, taxes, or borrowing constraints, all of which can meaningfully change the lived affordability of buying.

Why can two cities with similar prices have very different ratios?

Because incomes differ. A similar home price can be far more affordable in a city where typical household earnings are higher. That’s why the ratio is often more informative than prices alone for cross-city comparison.

What ratio is often treated as “affordable” in simple frameworks?

A common plain-language benchmark is around 3× annual income, but thresholds vary by country and reporting framework. Many cities in this Top 100 list are far above that level, which helps explain persistent affordability debates.

Should renters care about the price-to-income ratio?

Yes, indirectly. High ownership price-to-income ratios often coexist with broader housing scarcity and pressure on rents, though the strength of the link depends on local regulation, construction pipelines, and tenure structure.