San Francisco edges ahead of San Mateo County on higher occupancy (55% vs 36%), stronger RevPAR (£47 vs £32).
Head-to-head metrics
| San Francisco | San Mateo County | |
|---|---|---|
| Median occupancy | 55% | 36% |
| Median daily rate | £121 | £126 |
| Median RevPAR | £47 | £32 |
| Active listings | 4,491 | 2,302 |
| YoY occupancy | — | +9.7 pts |
| YoY daily rate | — | +0.6% |
| Regulation risk | high | — |
| Annual night cap | 90 | None |
| License required | Yes | No |
Full analysis: San Francisco vs San Mateo County
On the money side of this comparison — what a listing actually earns against the nights it has available — San Francisco finishes decisively ahead of San Mateo County. Revenue per available night — rate and occupancy combined, the figure that actually reaches an owner — is 47.8% higher in San Francisco: £47 against £32. San Francisco sells 19 more points of its calendar — 55% median occupancy against 36% in San Mateo County. That is not a rounding difference, and it compounds over a hold period.
The two markets reach their revenue by different routes, which is what makes this pairing worth reading rather than just tabulating. San Mateo County is the rate market: £126 a night against £121, some 3.9% more, but it converts fewer of those nights at 36% occupancy. San Francisco is the volume market, filling 55% of its calendar at a lower headline price. Revenue per available night settles it: £47 in San Francisco against £32. Rate is what you advertise; RevPAR is what you bank.
That verdict needs a caveat, because San Mateo County is not simply the weaker market of the two. San Mateo County is the less crowded of the two — 2,302 active listings to 4,491 — so a well-run property has fewer near-identical rivals to out-rank. Its strongest submarket, Pacifica, clears £67 RevPAR on its own — city medians hide that kind of spread. If your model leans on that dimension, the ordering above can reasonably flip.
We hold a verified regulation record for only one side of this pairing. San Francisco caps entire-home letting at 90 nights a year and requires a licence, on a high risk rating. San Mateo County should be read as unverified rather than unregulated: check the local authority's own register before you underwrite anything there.
The two calendars also behave differently. San Francisco peaks in November at 65.3% and bottoms in April at 38.6%; San Mateo County runs from 55.7% in September down to 30.8% in February. Both swing by a similar amount across the year, so neither offers meaningfully steadier cash flow than the other.
Who each suits, then. San Francisco suits an owner who expects to use the property personally for part of the year, or to run a hybrid calendar around the 90-night ceiling. San Mateo County suits buyers who want a conventional, lightly regulated entry. Every figure above comes from the same Inside Airbnb snapshot pipeline on both sides, filtered to listings with at least one booking in the last twelve months. Occupancy medians are drawn from 1,763 active San Francisco listings and 1,249 in San Mateo County.
Frequently asked questions
Is San Francisco or San Mateo County better for Airbnb investment?
Which has higher occupancy, San Francisco or San Mateo County?
Which has higher nightly rates, San Francisco or San Mateo County?
Is San Francisco or San Mateo County riskier for Airbnb regulation?
Which has stronger year-over-year growth, San Francisco or San Mateo County?
Which is the bigger Airbnb market, San Francisco or San Mateo County?
Go deeper on each city
Get a full investment report on either city
Property-level financials, stress tests, and an AI verdict — £19 each.
Already hosting? Meet HostPal
An AI concierge that answers your guests on WhatsApp 24/7 — in 50+ languages, from your own guidebook and house rules. Emergencies get escalated to you; the WiFi password doesn't. Live in under 10 minutes.
Try HostPal free for 7 days →