Los Angeles vs San Diego Airbnb: which market earns more in 2024

San Diego pays nearly $15K more per year at the median, but the gap in nightly rate tells you even more. Here's what the numbers say about which city is worth the entry cost.

VS

The headline occupancy figures are identical — 48% in both cities — and that statistical dead heat will fool you if you stop there. Underneath it, San Diego charges $104 more per night and generates $15.1K more in annual revenue at the median. Same beds filled, very different cheques.

This piece works through what that gap actually means for a buyer choosing between the two: whether San Diego's premium rate is structurally defensible, how each city's seasonal shape affects your cashflow calendar, and what the regulatory picture looks like for someone buying today.

Where the money actually is

The $104 nightly rate gap is the number that should dominate your spreadsheet. At 48% occupancy across a full year — roughly 175 nights — that difference compounds to about $18.2K in gross revenue before you touch expenses, which more than explains the $15.1K median gap after the messiness of real-world occupancy variance. San Diego's median lands at $37.0K; Los Angeles at $21.9K. That's not a rounding difference. That's a different asset class.

Both cities saw extraordinary rate growth year-on-year — 65% in San Diego, 56.4% in Los Angeles — which should prompt a degree of scepticism about whether either figure is a stable baseline or a post-pandemic distortion still unwinding. Los Angeles also shed six occupancy points year-on-year while San Diego held flat. Losing occupancy while hiking rate is a market under pressure; holding occupancy while growing rate is a market with pricing power. That distinction matters more than the headline growth figures.

The supply picture reinforces it. Los Angeles runs 24,102 active listings against San Diego's 9,600 — two and a half times the competition for a metro area that isn't two and a half times the size in tourism terms. More listings chasing roughly similar demand is the mechanical reason LA's occupancy is falling while San Diego's holds. What this data can't tell you is purchase price, and that's a real limitation: if San Diego entry costs are 40% higher, the yield advantage narrows sharply and you'd need to model both cities against actual comparable transaction prices before committing.

The shape of the year

San Diego's seasonal curve is steeper and more concentrated. It peaks at 68% in July and troughs at 31% in December — a 37-point swing. Los Angeles peaks at 54% in June and troughs at 29% in November, a 25-point spread. For a year-round operator trying to smooth cashflow, that shallower LA curve is genuinely easier to manage; your worst month is less punishing relative to your best.

For a seasonal operator — someone running a beach-facing entire home in Pacific Beach or Mission Bay and willing to accept winter vacancy — San Diego's summer ceiling is the better bet. A 68% July in a market averaging $348 per night generates serious short-burst revenue. The catch is that December at 31% means roughly nine occupied nights in the month, and you need to have priced your financing around that reality. LA's trough is nearly as bad in absolute terms, but the shallower slope means you accumulate more nights in the shoulder months either side of it.

What the rules actually do to you

Neither city imposes a night cap, which removes the single most damaging regulatory lever in markets like New York or Edinburgh. For a UK investor used to worrying about 90-night limits, that absence is significant. Both cities currently allow unlimited annual nights on registered short-term lets, though both have active political pressure to tighten — California cities have a track record of moving quickly when neighbourhood lobbying reaches a threshold, so 'no cap today' is not a guarantee.

The more practical filter in both markets is the permitting process. Los Angeles requires a home-sharing permit tied to primary residence for hosted lets, but entire-home operators without primary residence status face a harder path — the rules distinguish between owner-occupied and investment properties in ways that matter for a buyer who won't be living there. San Diego's framework is somewhat more permissive for non-owner-occupiers in designated zones, particularly in coastal areas where tourism pressure has made short-term letting politically normalised. If you're buying as a pure investment without intending to establish US residency or a primary address, San Diego's zoning map is friendlier. Either way, you need a local permit specialist before exchange, not after.

The call

San Diego is the stronger short-term let investment on every metric that survives scrutiny: higher rate, equal occupancy, $15.1K more revenue at the median, flat occupancy trend versus a declining one, and a smaller competitive field. The rate growth is probably not fully repeatable, but the structural advantage — a coastal leisure market with constrained supply — is real.

The honest case for Los Angeles is portfolio logic rather than yield logic. If you already have a San Diego asset, or a coastal property elsewhere, LA's size and diversity mean it responds to different demand drivers — film industry, events, LAX transit stays — that don't correlate perfectly with a beach-leisure market. A buyer who wants two US properties might find LA the better second one precisely because it doesn't rhyme with San Diego. But as a first US market, or as a straight comparison between the two, San Diego doesn't lose on the numbers. It just costs more to get in, and that figure isn't in this dataset.

Frequently asked questions

Methodology. Figures are medians across active listings from Inside Airbnb's 2026-06-15 snapshot, refreshed automatically as new snapshots land. The table and chart above always show the latest data; the commentary is re-written when the numbers move materially.