San Francisco Wins
1
of 6 categories
Tied
0
categories
Los Angeles Wins
5
of 6 categories
Category Breakdown
Compare costs across 6 key categories
Overall Cost
105
San Francisco
vs
85
Los Angeles
Los Angeles is 20 pts cheaper
Rent
110
San Francisco
vs
85
Los Angeles
Los Angeles is 25 pts cheaper
Groceries
102
San Francisco
vs
95
Los Angeles
Los Angeles is 7 pts cheaper
Restaurants
105
San Francisco
vs
90
Los Angeles
Los Angeles is 15 pts cheaper
Transport
95
San Francisco
vs
105
Los Angeles
San Francisco is 10 pts cheaper
Utilities
98
San Francisco
vs
90
Los Angeles
Los Angeles is 8 pts cheaper
Salary Equivalence
How much you'd need in Los Angeles to match a San Francisco salary
| Salary in San Francisco | Equivalent in Los Angeles | Difference |
|---|---|---|
| $50,000 | $40,476 | $9,524 less |
| $75,000 | $60,714 | $14,286 less |
| $100,000 | $80,952 | $19,048 less |
| $125,000 | $101,190 | $23,810 less |
| $150,000 | $121,429 | $28,571 less |
| $200,000 | $161,905 | $38,095 less |
San Francisco vs Los Angeles: Summary
The overall cost of living differs by 20%. Los Angeles is the more affordable option.
Rent: San Francisco has a rent index of 110, while Los Angeles has 85.
Average Salaries: San Francisco: $7,000/month vs Los Angeles: $4,800/month (both in USD).
Out of 6 categories, San Francisco wins 1, while Los Angeles wins 5.
Compare more cities or calculate your US take-home pay.