Lexington County

Lexington County's headline numbers put it in a middle zone that serious investors need to read carefully before committing capital. The gross rent-to-price ratio sits at 0.0734, which translates to a gross yield just under 8.8% annualized, and the modeled cap rate comes in at 4.77%. That cap rate is workable in the current rate environment but not exceptional, and the financing math is punishing at 6.85%: a 20% down purchase at the median price of $271,722 produces an estimated monthly cash flow of negative $345 and a cash-on-cash return of negative 6.62%. Year-over-year home price growth of 1.63% is positive but modest, so Lexington is not a market where you can lean on appreciation to paper over the carry deficit. The affordability index of 72 and the overall score of 65 (68th national percentile, 5th in South Carolina out of 46 counties) describe a market that is reasonably priced relative to incomes but not a screaming deal at prevailing rates.

The cash-flow score of 73 is the highest individual score in the dataset, which is a useful signal even though the base-case underwrite is negative. That score reflects the rent-to-price ratio holding up better than many comparable suburban markets, meaning the gap between rents and prices is not as wide as it looks in gateway metros. The practical implication: a buyer who can purchase below median, bring a larger down payment, or find a rate improvement through assumption or seller concessions has a realistic path to flat or modestly positive cash flow. This is not a market for investors who need 8% cash-on-cash from a standard 20% down purchase at asking price. It is a market for the disciplined buyer hunting 10-15% below median, or the value-add operator who can push rents above $1,662 through renovation. The appreciation score of 66 is adequate but not a reason to buy; the stability score of 50 is the weakest number in the profile and deserves weight in any hold-period underwrite.

South Carolina's property tax regime is a genuine tailwind here. The state-average effective rate is 0.57%, which the Tax Foundation classifies as low, generating an estimated annual tax bill of $1,549 on the median-priced property. Combined with an estimated annual insurance cost of $924, the monthly tax-and-insurance burden is approximately $206. That figure is already baked into the $582 monthly expense estimate, but it is worth isolating: in a high-tax state that same asset might carry $400 or more per month in tax alone. The low rate is a real underwriting tailwind that partially offsets the rate-environment headwind. The standard caveat applies: 0.57% is a state-average estimate; actual rates at the county and township level can differ, so verify the specific parcel's tax history before closing.

Comparing Lexington to its neighbors clarifies where it earns and loses ground. Orangeburg County has the most compelling gross yield in the peer group, with a rent-to-price ratio of 0.0918 against a median price of $154,731, but its overall score of 64 trails Lexington by one point and the lower absolute rent ($1,184) suggests a thinner tenant pool and likely weaker economic base. Greenwood County follows a similar pattern: price of $166,406, rent-to-price of 0.0819, overall score of 62. Both Orangeburg and Greenwood offer better headline yields but score lower overall, which typically reflects stability or demand-side concerns that compress long-run returns. Aiken County at $226,755 and Richland County at $238,959 both carry rent-to-price ratios near 0.077 to 0.078, meaningfully better than Lexington's 0.073, while their overall scores (65 and 66 respectively) are comparable or slightly higher. Richland, which includes Columbia, likely benefits from the state capital's employment base and institutional anchors. McCormick County has the highest median price among neighbors at $319,373 but no rent data is available, making it difficult to underwrite.

The case for Lexington over its neighbors comes down to scale and suburban demand. At nearly 296,000 residents it is the largest county in this peer group by a significant margin, which typically supports more liquid resale markets, deeper tenant pools, and more consistent rent growth than smaller rural counties. An investor choosing between Lexington and Aiken or Richland is trading a slightly worse rent-to-price ratio for what is likely a denser, more liquid market with more active real estate activity. An investor chasing pure yield math should look hard at Orangeburg or Greenwood, but must model vacancy and rent growth conservatively. The investor best suited to Lexington is one who values market depth and liquidity, can underwrite selectively to find assets below median or with value-add upside, and is comfortable with a hold period long enough to benefit from gradual rent appreciation in a growing suburban South Carolina county.