Compare-Cities.com
Compare Beverly Hills to South San Francisco
This post compares Beverly Hills, California to South San Francisco, California across various dimensions, including population, median income, median age, percentage of housing that is rental, percent of households with kids, and other demographics.
| Dimension | Beverly Hills (city) | South San Francisco (city) |
|---|---|---|
| Population | 34,506 | 67,120 |
| Income (median) | $82,377 | $52,696 |
| Home Value (median) | $2,000,000+ | $697,400 |
| White | 82% | 33% |
| Black | 1% | 2% |
| Asian | 9% | 39% |
| With Kids | 24% | 34% |
| Age (median) | 43 | 39 |
| Rentals | 58% | 38% |
Questions and Answers:
Q: Which is more populated, Beverly Hills or South San Francisco?
A: Beverly Hills has a smaller population count than South San Francisco: 34506 compared with 67120 total people.
Q: Do incomes tend to be higher in Beverly Hills or in South San Francisco?
A: Incomes are on average much higher in Beverly Hills.
Q: Are homes more expensive in Beverly Hills or South San Francisco?
A: Homes tend to be much less expensive in Beverly Hills.
Q: Which has a higher percentage of housing rental units?
A: Beverly Hills does. The percentage of rentals differs quite a bit: 58% for Beverly Hills versus 38% for South San Francisco.
Somewhat similar in-state cities, towns, and CDPs to Beverly Hills may include: Carmichael, Fair-Oaks, and Redding.
The statistics and analyses on this page are based on data from the U.S. Census American Community Survey.
City first letter menu:
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z