Hillsborough County

Hillsborough County sits at a 3.26% cap rate with a gross rent-to-price ratio of 0.050, which places it firmly in appreciation territory rather than cash-flow territory. The numbers are unambiguous: at a $517,347 median purchase price and $2,165 median monthly rent, a leveraged buy at 6.85% produces a monthly mortgage of $2,712, and after adding $758 in estimated expenses the model spits out negative $1,305 per month in cash flow and a cash-on-cash return of -13.16%. That is not a rounding error; it is a structural condition of this market. The appreciation score of 72 is the highest of the five scores listed, year-over-year home price growth came in at 2.23%, and the overall rank of 617th out of 1,000 counties nationally, landing at the 21st percentile, confirms this is not a top-tier market by composite measure. It ranks 8th out of 10 New Hampshire counties in this dataset.

The buyer this market suits is not someone underwriting for monthly income. A cash-flow buyer running a standard 20% down payment scenario loses money every month by the model's own estimate, and there is no scenario in which a 3.26% cap rate covers debt service at 6.85%. The appreciation buyer or long-hold equity accumulator has a more defensible case: a 72 appreciation score, a $517,000 median price in the most populous county in New Hampshire with 422,733 residents, and the 2.23% price growth figure suggest the asset base is appreciating, even if slowly. A value-add operator has an angle only if they can move rents materially above the $2,165 median, since the carry cost structure otherwise drowns any forced-equity strategy in negative cash flow from day one. This is not a market for anyone who needs the property to pay for itself on acquisition day.

The property tax situation is the single most important line item an underwriter needs to isolate before committing. New Hampshire carries a state-average effective property tax rate of 2.18%, which the data flags as very high, and at a $517,347 purchase price that translates to $11,278 annually in property taxes alone. Insurance adds another $1,190 per year. Together, tax and insurance run $1,039 per month, which is already 48% of the total gross rent of $2,165. That is not a margin issue; it is a structural impediment to any cash-flow thesis. At 2.18%, the state-average rate deserves its own line on every underwrite, with a note that county and township rates in New Hampshire can differ meaningfully from that figure, and in some municipalities they run higher. An investor buying here without stress-testing the actual assessed rate for a specific parcel is underwriting blindly.

Against the neighbors, Hillsborough is consistently middle-of-the-pack or below. Grafton County carries a 0.059 rent-to-price ratio versus Hillsborough's 0.050, scores 60 overall against Hillsborough's 49, and does so at a $413,099 median price, over $100,000 cheaper per door. Strafford County scores 56 overall, has a 0.051 rent-to-price ratio essentially tied with Hillsborough's, and comes in at $485,977 median, again cheaper. Merrimack County scores 56 overall, has a 0.049 rent-to-price ratio fractionally below Hillsborough's, and prices at $470,918. Rockingham County is the only neighbor more expensive, at $599,250 median, though it scores 54 overall versus Hillsborough's 49 and carries a lower rent-to-price ratio of 0.047. Coos County scores 57 overall at a $258,134 median price, though no rent data is available for direct comparison.

The case for choosing Hillsborough over its neighbors comes down to one thing: population scale. At 422,733 residents, it is the largest county in the state, which means deeper rental demand, more tenant turnover to absorb, and more transaction liquidity when it is time to exit. If an investor's thesis is long-hold appreciation in New Hampshire's most populated urban core, Hillsborough is the natural anchor. If the thesis involves cash flow or a better rent-to-price ratio for the same New Hampshire exposure, Grafton and Strafford both present a more favorable entry point by the numbers in this dataset. The choice between Hillsborough and those alternatives is essentially a trade of yield efficiency for population depth.