Marshall County

Marshall County sits at a median home price of $164,309 with 6.2% year-over-year appreciation, which is a meaningful price gain for a county of this size. The affordability index of 95 confirms that homes remain accessible relative to local incomes. The data does not include rent estimates or net operating income figures, so cap rate and cash-on-cash return are not calculable from what's provided. What is calculable: at a 20% down payment of $32,862 and a 6.85% interest rate, a buyer is getting into a $164K asset at a price point where appreciation at 6.2% annually adds roughly $10,000 in equity per year. The scoring system rates this county a 90 out of 100 for appreciation and a 95 for affordability, while the cash flow score registers zero, which reflects missing rent data rather than confirmed negative cash flow. The honest read is that Marshall is flagged as an appreciation play, and the numbers support that framing.

This market suits an appreciation-oriented buyer who wants low entry cost and upside without the pricing pressure of larger metros. At $164,309, the purchase price is low enough that a patient buy-and-hold investor can build equity on a modest capital outlay. The 90 appreciation score and a national percentile rank of 98th out of 1,000 counties suggest the model sees this as an outlier on price growth relative to peers. The stability score of 50 is the counterweight: this is a county of 10,014 people, and thin population bases carry inherent demand fragility. A value-add operator looking to force appreciation through renovation could find the low basis attractive, but should underwrite conservatively on exit liquidity given the population size.

No economic anchor or employer data was provided for Marshall County, so the drivers behind rental demand and job stability cannot be attributed to specific entities here. What the population figure does tell you is that this is a small, likely agricultural-economy county in northeastern Kansas. At 10,014 residents, the renter pool is limited by definition, which matters if you're underwriting vacancy or planning for tenant turnover.

On carry costs, the property tax rate is 1.41% using the state-average effective rate from Tax Foundation 2024 data, with the caveat that actual county and township rates in Kansas can differ from that figure. The flag is "normal," meaning it's neither a tailwind nor a material drag relative to peer markets. Combined with an insurance rate of 0.58%, the monthly tax and insurance burden comes to $273, which is a real number to carry on the underwrite. For a property at this price point, that $273 represents a fixed monthly cost that arrives before any management fee, maintenance reserve, or vacancy allowance. Kansas sits in tornado country, and insurance rates can vary significantly by specific location and carrier, so the 0.58% figure should be treated as a starting estimate rather than a locked input.

The primary risk here is concentration in a small population base. At 10,014 people, a single employer contraction or demographic shift could materially affect rental demand. This is not a risk invented for this analysis, it is a structural feature of any sub-10,000 population county. The 50 stability score reflects this directly. An investor who needs reliable occupancy and predictable cash flow would need to verify local vacancy conditions on the ground before committing capital.

Among the neighboring counties provided, Marshall scores highest at 79 overall, edging out Dickinson (78), Sherman (78), Grant (77), and Kearny (77), while trailing Doniphan (81). Doniphan at an 81 overall score is the strongest comps comparison, though its median price of $158,045 is modestly lower than Marshall's $164,309. An investor choosing Marshall over Doniphan is essentially paying a $6,000 premium for one additional point in appreciation score. Whether that trade is worth it depends on where specifically in each county you're buying and what the ground-level rental market looks like. Kearny County at $185,891 is the most expensive neighbor and carries a lower overall score of 77, making it the least compelling entry point in this peer group. Sherman and Grant both score 78 and 77 respectively at lower price points than Marshall, which means an investor prioritizing the lowest possible basis might look there first, accepting slightly lower appreciation scores in exchange for a cheaper entry.