Cost of Living score
Affordability, essential costs, and day-to-day financial pressure for residents.
Cost of Living in Los Angeles56/100
Cost of Living
Cost of Living in Los Angeles
Los Angeles is expensive on housing and central services, partially offset by amenity and labor-market depth. Cost of Living in Los Angeles scores 56/100, placing it in the early-stage group of the indexed set.
- Last updated
- 2026-05-07
- Data year
- 2025
- Module score
- 56/100
Affordability score
56/100
Lower score driven by housing and mobility costs.
Housing pressure
Very high
Long-run demand and supply imbalances dominate the cost profile.
Transport cost
High
Car dependence raises recurring household transport spend.
Los Angeles cost of living data table
This HTML table mirrors the visible score cards so important comparison data is never trapped in a browser-only chart.
| Metric | Value | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Affordability score | 56/100 | Amenity and labor depth partially offset costs. |
| Housing pressure | Very high | Coastal and central districts are especially competitive. |
| Transport cost | High | Transit expansion is in progress but coverage varies. |
Cost of Living city comparison
A crawlable comparison across every indexed city makes it easy to scan how this module changes between metros.
| City | Score | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Los Angeles (this page) | 56/100 | Los Angeles is expensive on housing and central services, partially offset by amenity and labor-market depth. |
| Nairobi | 80/100 | Nairobi offers favorable affordability for a major regional capital, with strong variation across districts and household profiles. |
| Bogotá | 80/100 | Bogotá offers strong affordability for a major Latin American capital, with food and transit costs supporting steady daily life. |
| Jakarta | 80/100 | Jakarta offers strong affordability for a major Southeast Asian capital, with food and transit costs supporting steady daily life. |
| Kigali | 80/100 | Kigali offers strong affordability for an African capital, with food and transit costs supporting steady daily life. |
| Bangkok | 78/100 | Bangkok offers favorable affordability for a major Asian capital, with strong food and transit cost stability supporting daily life. |
| Mexico City | 78/100 | Mexico City offers favorable affordability for a major capital, with strong food and transit cost stability supporting daily life. |
| Lima | 78/100 | Lima offers strong affordability for a major capital, with food and transit costs supporting steady daily life. |
| Kuala Lumpur | 78/100 | Kuala Lumpur offers strong affordability for a major Southeast Asian capital, with food and transit costs supporting steady daily life. |
| Manila | 78/100 | Manila offers strong affordability for a major Southeast Asian capital, with food and transit costs supporting steady daily life. |
| Mumbai | 78/100 | Mumbai offers strong affordability for a major South Asian capital, with food and transit costs supporting steady daily life despite housing pressure. |
| Lagos | 78/100 | Lagos offers strong affordability for a major capital, with food and transit costs supporting steady daily life despite urban density. |
| Cape Town | 76/100 | Cape Town offers comparatively favorable affordability for a major coastal city, with rising rent pressure in central neighborhoods. |
| Buenos Aires | 76/100 | Buenos Aires offers favorable affordability for a major capital, with currency dynamics shaping international comparisons over time. |
| Johannesburg | 76/100 | Johannesburg offers favorable affordability for a major economic capital, with food and services costs supporting steady daily life. |
| São Paulo | 74/100 | São Paulo offers comparatively favorable affordability for a major global capital, with strong variation across districts and household profiles. |
| Prague | 74/100 | Prague offers favorable affordability for Central Europe, with central rents rising and food and transit keeping daily costs balanced. |
| Warsaw | 74/100 | Warsaw offers favorable affordability for a major European capital, with central rents rising and transit keeping daily costs balanced. |
| Vienna | 72/100 | Vienna offers strong housing access for a major European capital, supported by mature social-housing programs and reliable public services. |
| Madrid | 72/100 | Madrid offers moderate affordability for a major European capital, with central rents rising and transit and food keeping daily costs balanced. |
| Berlin | 70/100 | Berlin is more affordable than most major European capitals, with rent pressure rising over time. |
| Rome | 70/100 | Rome offers moderate affordability for a major European capital, with central rents and tourism shaping price levels in popular districts. |
| Lisbon | 70/100 | Lisbon offers moderate affordability for Western Europe, with central rents climbing as remote-work demand grows. |
| Santiago | 70/100 | Santiago offers moderate affordability for a major Latin American capital, with central rents and services balanced against transit reach. |
| Taipei | 70/100 | Taipei offers moderate affordability for a major East Asian capital, with central rents balanced and food and transit costs steady. |
| Tokyo | 68/100 | Tokyo is not cheap, but transit access, service density, and varied housing formats improve practical affordability. |
| Chicago | 68/100 | Chicago is more affordable than US coastal peers, with central rents balanced and transit reach reducing transport costs. |
| Copenhagen | 66/100 | Copenhagen is expensive in rent and services, but strong public infrastructure reduces some hidden mobility and health costs. |
| Abu Dhabi | 66/100 | Abu Dhabi is moderately expensive on housing and central services, with food, transit, and household services balanced for residents. |
| Barcelona | 64/100 | Barcelona is more affordable than peer Western capitals, with rising rent pressure tied to tourism and demand for central living. |
| Milan | 64/100 | Milan is among Italy's most expensive metros, with rising central rents balanced by strong transit and food markets. |
| Shanghai | 64/100 | Shanghai is among China's most expensive metros, with central rents balanced against deep services, food, and transit access. |
| Doha | 64/100 | Doha is moderately expensive on housing and central services, with food, transit, and household services balanced for residents. |
| Brisbane | 64/100 | Brisbane is moderately expensive on housing and central services, partially offset by amenity and service quality. |
| Dubai | 62/100 | Dubai is mid-tier on cost of living, with housing and services costs varying widely across districts and household profiles. |
| Singapore | 60/100 | Singapore is expensive on rent and vehicles, balanced by strong transit, public services, and food-court price stability. |
| Amsterdam | 60/100 | Amsterdam carries elevated rent and services costs, partly offset by cycling, transit, and broad public-service quality. |
| Seoul | 60/100 | Seoul carries elevated rent and education costs, balanced by transit reach, dense services, and broad opportunity access. |
| Seattle | 60/100 | Seattle is expensive on housing and central services, partially offset by amenity, services, and tech-sector wage depth. |
| Melbourne | 60/100 | Melbourne is expensive on housing and central services, partially offset by amenity and service quality. |
| Auckland | 56/100 | Auckland is expensive on housing and central services, partially offset by outdoor amenity and service quality. |
| Vancouver | 56/100 | Vancouver is expensive on housing and central services, partially offset by outdoor amenity and service depth. |
| Paris | 55/100 | Paris has high housing pressure, but compact mobility and public amenities reduce some day-to-day costs. |
| Toronto | 55/100 | Toronto offers strong public services but housing prices and rents drive elevated cost pressure. |
| London | 52/100 | London is expensive in housing and central services, partially offset by transit reach and broad opportunity access. |
| Zurich | 52/100 | Zurich is among the most expensive global cities on rent and services, with strong wages and public-service quality offsetting some pressure. |
| Sydney | 50/100 | Sydney is expensive on housing and central services, partially offset by outdoor amenity and service quality. |
| Hong Kong | 50/100 | Hong Kong is among the most expensive global cities on housing, with very strong transit and services partly offsetting daily costs. |
| San Francisco | 50/100 | San Francisco offers exceptional opportunity access, with housing costs placing heavy pressure on household resilience. |
| New York | 49/100 | New York offers exceptional access to work and services, but housing costs place heavy pressure on household resilience. |
Interpretation
The cost-of-living model balances housing pressure with services and amenity. Los Angeles' costs are dominated by housing and transport. Across the indexed cities the cost of living average is 67/100, so Los Angeles is 11 points below the median. Data year 2025; last updated 2026-05-07. Drawn from 3 institutional references.
Read this module with the main open the los angeles city profile and the read the scoring methodology page so single-topic pages do not hide tradeoffs across dimensions.
This page uses a typed sample dataset shaped to demonstrate the indexable content structure. Values are directional and not official measurements.
Sources
3 institutional references inform this view, listed below with reliability notes. Mock values are typed and ready to be replaced by API-backed city datasets without changing route structure.
- UN-Habitat: World Cities Report 2024
Used as a policy and methodology reference for urban exposure and resilience signals.
- IPCC: AR6 WGII Chapter 6: Cities, settlements and key infrastructure
Used to explain urban climate vulnerability and adaptation scoring logic.
- Numbeo: Cost of Living Index
Used for directional affordability framing alongside official housing and price datasets.
Continue exploring
These links connect module pages back to city, ranking, and sibling topic paths with crawlable href values.
Los Angeles city profile
Return to the complete Los Angeles profile with all module scores and source context.
Air Quality in Los Angeles
Health-oriented air-quality conditions with context from WHO, EEA, and EPA benchmarks.
Energy in Los Angeles
Clean-energy readiness, grid resilience, and solar or efficiency opportunity signals.
Safety in Los Angeles
Personal safety, institutional trust, and resilience signals informed by international safety and crime data.
Internet Speed in Los Angeles
Broadband and mobile connectivity quality, latency, and digital-readiness signals for residents and remote workers.
Climate Risk in Los Angeles
Climate exposure, hazard frequency, and adaptation context for floods, heat, storms, and wildfires.
Overall Intelligence
A balanced ranking of cities across affordability, air quality, clean-energy readiness, and resilience.
Quality of Life
Cities that combine strong services, mobility, safety, clean air, and resilience into a healthy day-to-day profile.