PropertyIQ Q2 2026: Best Real Estate Market in Every State

Where is the best real estate market in your state right now? We pulled Q2 2026 data for every metro in the PropertyIQ dataset and identified the single highest-scoring market in each of the 50 states. Below are all 50, ranked by score, with a brief explanation of what's driving each result.

The short version: the Northeast and Upper Midwest are running well ahead of the rest of the country. Three states score 99 — the model's top reading. Seven of the top ten are in the Northeast or Mid-Atlantic corridor. The Sun Belt states that dominated the 2021–2023 cycle are mostly in the bottom half of this table.

How the PropertyIQ Score Works

The PropertyIQ Score is a 0–100 composite index updated monthly using data from Zillow, Realtor.com, the U.S. Census Bureau, and regional economic indicators. A score of 50 is the national average. Above 70 is above-average. Above 90 is exceptional.

The model measures five things simultaneously: price trends, inventory levels, demand absorption (days on market, pending ratios), affordability relative to historical norms, and economic fundamentals. When supply is tight, absorption is fast, and fundamentals are stable, the score is high. When inventory is building, prices have overshot incomes, or the local economy is exposed to a single sector, the score falls.

---

A+ Markets: Scores 95–99

These markets are posting the strongest conditions in the country. Supply is not keeping up with demand. Absorption is fast. Prices are supported by structural constraints, not speculative momentum.

#1 — California: San Francisco (Score 99) The Bay Area's housing-to-job ratio has been negative for decades. Geography caps supply on three sides, and local zoning has made dense construction slow and expensive. Even through rate pressure, the structural imbalance between job creation and unit creation keeps the score at the top of the range.

#2 — Nebraska: North Platte (Score 99) A small prairie market with exceptional supply tightness. Limited new construction, stable agricultural-sector employment, and no speculative overbuilding during the pandemic cycle. The score reflects structural balance, not a price run-up.

#3 — New York: Rochester (Score 99) Rochester has posted A-range scores for six consecutive months. It's affordable relative to its Northeast peers, has absorbed steady in-migration from NYC and Boston corridor buyers priced out of larger markets, and has a housing stock that isn't adding new units fast enough to relieve demand. The combination is durable.

#4 — Connecticut: Norwich (Score 98) Norwich sits at the affordable end of the Connecticut market and has benefited from remote worker migration out of the New York suburbs. Inventory is thin and has not recovered to pre-2020 levels. The market is small enough that any sustained demand shift moves the score materially.

#5 — New Hampshire: Manchester (Score 98) No state income tax, Boston commute range for a large portion of buyers, and land constraints that limit new residential development. Manchester has been absorbing Boston-area price pressure for several years and the inventory situation has not eased. Strong score reflects real supply tightness, not hype.

#6 — Washington: Oak Harbor (Score 98) NAS Whidbey Island anchors a stable employment base, and Whidbey Island's geography is a hard supply constraint — you can't build laterally on an island. Military concentration provides demand stability even when broader regional sentiment softens.

#7 — Massachusetts: Springfield (Score 97) Springfield functions as the affordable alternative to the Boston metro. It has drawn buyers priced out of eastern Massachusetts, has a university employment base (several colleges in the area), and has not seen the permit activity needed to relieve inventory pressure. The Boston demand overflow is structural and continues.

#8 — New Mexico: Los Alamos (Score 97) Los Alamos National Laboratory dominates local employment and creates an unusually stable, high-income demand base. The town's physical constraints (it sits on a mesa) and the lab's consistent federal funding make this one of the most predictable housing markets in the country. Supply cannot expand meaningfully. Score reflects that reality.

#9 — Pennsylvania: Lancaster (Score 97) Lancaster has a diverse economy (agriculture, tourism, healthcare, light manufacturing) and has been absorbing Philadelphia-area buyers seeking affordability and quality of life. The existing housing stock is constrained by historic preservation in the core and limited developable land on the edges. Consistent performer.

#10 — New Jersey: Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton (Score 96) (cross-state metro) This Pennsylvania-anchored metro reaches into Warren County, NJ, making it New Jersey's highest-scoring market by coverage. It has transitioned from heavy industrial to logistics, healthcare, and services, and offers affordability that is increasingly rare within commute range of both New York and Philadelphia. Supply is not keeping pace with demand from both metros' overflow.

#11 — Rhode Island: Providence (Score 96) Providence is the Boston overflow market at a price that still works. It has a large university population, a healthcare employment base, and limited new residential construction. The metro has absorbed sustained in-migration from Greater Boston and inventory has remained structurally tight.

#12 — Iowa: Spencer (Score 95) A small northwestern Iowa market with tight supply and stable agricultural employment. Limited new construction activity. Spencer punches above its size because the model is measuring supply-demand balance, not absolute market size, and the balance here is very favorable.

#13 — Kansas: Ottawa (Score 95) Ottawa sits within the Kansas City metro orbit and benefits from Kansas City's continued growth without Kansas City's price pressure. Affordable, with constrained supply relative to steady demand. Proximity to a major metro without the overbuilding typical of outer-ring suburbs.

#14 — Wisconsin: Milwaukee (Score 95) Milwaukee's manufacturing base has stabilized and diversified into healthcare and financial services. The metro offers affordability that is rare in this tier of Midwestern cities. Supply has not responded to increased demand, keeping inventory tight and absorption fast.

---

---

A Markets: Scores 90–94

Strong conditions. These markets are above the national average on most dimensions. Supply is constrained and fundamentals are supportive, though not at the extremes of the top tier.

#15 — Illinois: Lincoln (Score 94) A small central Illinois market where the supply-demand balance is favorable. Limited development pressure, stable employment base. The score reflects tight local conditions in a market that doesn't attract attention but is functioning well.

#16 — Maine: Lewiston (Score 94) Maine's second-largest city has a healthcare and light manufacturing base, is affordable relative to the rest of Maine, and has seen sustained demand from buyers priced out of southern Maine and greater Boston. Inventory is structurally tight.

#17 — Minnesota: La Crosse-Onalaska (Score 94) (cross-state metro) This Wisconsin-anchored metro reaches into Houston County, MN. The Mississippi River geography constrains westward expansion, the regional medical center (Gundersen Health System) provides stable employment, and the market has not overbuilt. Steady performer.

#18 — Michigan: Grand Rapids (Score 93) Grand Rapids has a diversified economy (healthcare, manufacturing, food processing) and is one of the Midwest's consistently high-scoring markets. It offers affordability that is increasingly rare in the Great Lakes region, and supply constraints have held even as demand has grown.

#19 — Ohio: Portsmouth (Score 93) Portsmouth is a small Appalachian Ohio market that the model rates highly on supply-demand balance. Very limited new construction. The economic base is modest but stable enough to sustain consistent demand against a constrained housing stock.

#20 — Virginia: Richmond (Score 93) Richmond benefits from state government stability, a growing tech and financial services sector, and proximity to both DC and the Virginia coast. The near-metro supply is constrained, and the market has absorbed sustained in-migration from the DC corridor.

#21 — West Virginia: Fairmont (Score 93) Fairmont has a university presence (Fairmont State) and is close enough to Morgantown (WVU) to benefit from that demand base. Housing supply is very tight — construction activity has been minimal for years — and the employment base is more stable than the state average.

#22 — Oklahoma: Muskogee (Score 92) Small Oklahoma market with stable oil/gas-adjacent employment and very limited new construction. The model scores the supply-demand balance, and Muskogee's tight inventory against consistent local demand produces a strong reading.

#23 — Maryland: Baltimore (Score 91) Baltimore is a large and complex market. The score reflects the metro-level aggregate: proximity to DC, Johns Hopkins and the University of Maryland healthcare and education employment base, and a housing stock that — despite its size — has not seen inventory recover to pre-pandemic levels across key neighborhoods and price points.

#24 — Missouri: St. Louis (Score 91) St. Louis has a diverse employment base (healthcare, aerospace/defense, financial services), offers affordability that is rare at its metro scale, and has seen steady in-migration from higher-cost coastal metros. Inventory is tight in the neighborhoods and price tiers attracting the most demand.

#25 — North Carolina: Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News (Score 91) (cross-state metro) This Virginia-anchored metro reaches into three North Carolina counties. The largest concentration of military personnel and infrastructure in the country provides an employment base that is structurally insulated from private-sector cycles. Stable demand, consistent absorption, constrained supply near the core.

#26 — Indiana: Decatur (Score 90) A small agricultural-market community with tight supply and stable employment. The score reflects favorable local supply-demand balance in a market that rarely draws outside attention.

---

B Markets: Scores 80–89

Above-average but with more mixed signals. These markets have either partial supply relief, affordability pressure building, or economic base exposure that keeps the score from reaching A-range.

#27 — South Dakota: Sioux City (Score 89) (cross-state metro) This Iowa-anchored metro reaches into Union County, SD. The regional hub for food processing, agriculture services, and healthcare. Demand has been consistent, supply is not building fast, but the economic concentration in a single sector introduces some volatility risk.

#28 — Nevada: Carson City (Score 85) Carson City benefits from state government employment and its position as the affordable alternative to Reno, which overheated during the pandemic. Inventory is constrained relative to steady demand. It doesn't have Reno's speculative history, and that's a point in its favor right now.

#29 — Alabama: Gadsden (Score 82) Gadsden has a manufacturing base (auto parts, industrial) and tight supply in a market that has not attracted the overbuilding that characterized nearby Sun Belt metros. The score reflects favorable local conditions, though economic diversification risk keeps it out of the A tier.

#30 — Utah: Vernal (Score 82) Vernal is an energy-sector (oil shale) market. The score is supported by constrained supply and current energy employment stability, but the single-sector exposure is a real risk factor. Strong reading for now, but more cyclical than markets in the top tier.

#31 — Georgia: Jesup (Score 81) A small Southeast Georgia market with tight supply. Limited economic diversification, but also limited new construction pressure. The score reflects local balance, not broader regional strength.

#32 — Oregon: Portland (Score 81) Portland is a large, complex market. The score reflects conditions on the east side of the metro, where supply has been more constrained. The metro overall has seen inventory build relative to the pandemic peak, and affordability pressure has moderated demand at higher price points. Solid but not exceptional.

#33 — Delaware: Dover (Score 80) Dover benefits from state government and pharmaceutical employment, no sales tax (which underpins retail and service activity), and a position as the most affordable market in a state that is otherwise expensive. Supply is constrained and the employment base is stable.

---

C Markets: Scores 70–79

Above the national average, but signals are mixed. Either inventory is building, affordability is under pressure, or the economic base introduces volatility. These markets are functioning — they're just not as tight as the markets above them.

#34 — Mississippi: McComb (Score 79) Limited new construction keeps supply constrained, but the economic base is narrow and the market is small. The score reflects supply-demand balance but the fundamentals dimension pulls it down from higher.

#35 — Texas: Abilene (Score 79) Dyess Air Force Base anchors stable military employment. Oil and gas exposure adds volatility. Inventory is manageable, but Texas's overall construction activity and affordability concerns in the broader state context keep the score in the C range for Abilene's specific market conditions.

#36 — Alaska: Anchorage (Score 77) Anchorage has constrained supply but seasonal demand patterns and oil/gas economic exposure create volatility. The market is not overbuilt, but the economic base makes it difficult to sustain A-range conditions across a full year.

#37 — Colorado: Denver (Score 76) Denver ran hard from 2018 through 2022 and prices are still elevated relative to incomes. Inventory has been building since 2023. The market is not distressed, but the affordability math has deteriorated and some price correction has occurred. Solid economy, but the score reflects a market working through the consequences of its own run-up.

#38 — Kentucky: Cincinnati (Score 73) (cross-state metro) This Ohio-anchored metro reaches into Boone, Campbell, Kenton, and other Kentucky counties. Large, diverse metro with mixed signals: strong employment base (P&G, Kroger, healthcare), but inventory has grown in some price segments and affordability pressure has softened demand at the upper end.

#39 — Idaho: Moscow (Score 72) Home to the University of Idaho, which provides stable employment, but the market overheated during the pandemic-era Idaho migration wave and is still digesting that run-up. Supply is limited, but prices stretched relative to local incomes.

#40 — Tennessee: Athens (Score 70) A small market in Southeast Tennessee with mixed economic signals. Manufacturing employment is present but the market lacks the economic diversity needed to sustain higher-range conditions. Supply is not aggressively building, which keeps the score from falling further.

---

D and F Markets: Scores Below 70

These markets are at or below the national average. The reasons vary: post-cycle inventory correction, affordability breakdown, economic base exposure, or structural population pressure. Not every market on this list is declining, but conditions are unfavorable relative to the national benchmark.

#41 — Vermont: Barre (Score 66) Vermont is beautiful but economically limited outside of Burlington. Barre's housing stock is aging, the market is small, and the demand drivers are not strong enough to produce the absorption rates needed for a higher score. Not collapsing, but not competitive with the top-tier markets.

#42 — Wyoming: Casper (Score 64) Casper is an energy market. Oil and gas drive employment, and the boom-bust cycle is baked into the score. Current conditions are mid-cycle at best. When energy prices soften, these markets move quickly. The score reflects that cyclical vulnerability.

#43 — Louisiana: Alexandria (Score 60) Fort Johnson (formerly Fort Polk) provides a military employment base, but the broader Louisiana economy faces structural challenges: below-average income growth, infrastructure vulnerabilities, and limited economic diversification outside of energy and government. The military anchor keeps the score from falling further.

#44 — Arkansas: Russellville (Score 56) A small Arkansas market with limited economic diversification. Nuclear plant employment (Arkansas Nuclear One) provides some stability, but it's not enough to offset the broader constraints on demand and investment in the area.

#45 — South Carolina: Gaffney (Score 53) Gaffney has industrial employment (automotive supply chain, manufacturing) but limited broader economic drivers. The market is below the national average despite general Sun Belt interest — the score reflects that Gaffney specifically has not benefited from South Carolina's broader growth in the way that Charlotte or Greenville have.

#46 — Florida: Lakeland (Score 50) Lakeland was a high-activity market during the pandemic-era Florida migration wave. It's now working through the consequences: inventory has built significantly, prices have softened, and the affordability that once made it attractive has been partially eroded by the run-up. Score is at the national average, reflecting a market in correction.

#47 — Arizona: Phoenix (Score 45) Phoenix significantly overshot fundamentals during 2021–2022. Inventory has built back materially. Price corrections have occurred across several segments. The employment base remains solid, which prevents a sharper fall, but the score reflects a market where supply and affordability have moved against buyers and sellers alike. Recovery is in progress but not complete.

#48 — North Dakota: Minot (Score 42) Minot Air Force Base provides military employment stability, but the North Dakota oil sector creates boom-bust exposure that the military anchor cannot fully offset. Population is sensitive to energy employment, which means demand can shift quickly when energy prices move.

#49 — Hawaii: Honolulu (Score 33) Honolulu has one of the most extreme affordability constraints in the country. Prices relative to incomes are at multi-decade highs. In-migration has slowed. The supply constraints that typically support high scores are present, but when affordability becomes this severe, it suppresses demand enough to erode the score. The market is not distressed in the traditional sense, but it is not healthy by the metric that matters to most buyers.

#50 — Montana: Butte (Score 17) Butte has a mining heritage, limited economic diversification, and has experienced population pressure as younger residents leave for larger Montana cities or out-of-state. The housing stock is aging, new investment is limited, and the fundamentals dimension of the score pulls the overall reading down sharply. The lowest state-representative score this quarter by a wide margin.

---

Score Distribution Summary

| Grade | Score Range | States | |-------|-------------|--------| | A+ | 95–100 | 14 | | A | 90–94 | 12 | | B | 80–89 | 7 | | C | 70–79 | 7 | | D | 60–69 | 2 | | F | Below 60 | 8 |

A Note on Cross-State Metros

Five entries in this table represent metros that span state lines. Each is the highest-scoring metro with data coverage in that state:

• New Jersey (Rank 10): Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA-NJ metro (Warren County, NJ included)
• Minnesota (Rank 17): La Crosse-Onalaska, WI-MN metro (Houston County, MN included)
• North Carolina (Rank 25): Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC metro (Currituck, Camden, and Gates counties, NC included)
• South Dakota (Rank 27): Sioux City, IA-NE-SD metro (Union County, SD included)
• Kentucky (Rank 38): Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN metro (Boone, Campbell, Kenton, and other KY counties included)

Methodology

The PropertyIQ Score (0–100) is a composite index updated monthly using data from Zillow, Realtor.com, the U.S. Census Bureau, and regional economic indicators. A score of 50 represents the national average for that geography tier. Scores above 70 indicate above-average market conditions. Scores above 90 indicate exceptional conditions across multiple data dimensions.

For this report, the highest-scoring metro within each state (as defined by CBSA boundaries) was selected. Where the top-scoring metro spans multiple states, it is attributed to the state in which it achieves its highest data coverage. All 50 states are represented with no duplicates at the state level.

Scores reflect Q2 2026 data (April 2026 snapshot).

Disclaimer

PropertyIQ Scores are provided for informational purposes only. They do not constitute investment advice, financial guidance, or a recommendation to buy or sell any real estate asset. Scores reflect market conditions at the time of data collection and do not guarantee future performance. Consult a licensed real estate professional before making investment decisions.