Compare-Cities.com
Compare Riverbank to Foster City
This post compares Riverbank, California to Foster City, 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 | Riverbank (city) | Foster City (city) |
|---|---|---|
| Population | 24,047 | 33,529 |
| Income (median) | $42,277 | $105,889 |
| Home Value (median) | $247,200 | $1,051,000 |
| White | 79% | 43% |
| Black | 0% | 2% |
| Asian | 4% | 47% |
| With Kids | 46% | 33% |
| Age (median) | 32 | 40 |
| Rentals | 32% | 41% |
Questions and Answers:
Q: Which is more populated, Riverbank or Foster City?
A: Riverbank has a smaller population count than Foster City: 24047 compared with 33529 total people.
Q: Do incomes tend to be higher in Riverbank or in Foster City?
A: Incomes are on average much lower in Riverbank.
Q: Are homes more expensive in Riverbank or Foster City?
A: Homes tend to be much less expensive in Riverbank.
Q: Which has a higher percentage of housing rental units?
A: Foster City does. The percentage of rentals differs quite a bit: 32% for Riverbank versus 41% for Foster City.
Somewhat similar in-state cities, towns, and CDPs to Riverbank may include: Galt, Visalia, and Reedley.
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