U.S. Housing Stability Intelligence
City Profile
Saratoga Springs profile describes structural housing sustainability conditions for local residents using standardized national methodology.
Housing Stability Score
17
/100
2024 Score Edition • Higher is stronger
Score snapshot: 2024-12-30 · Method: v3-2024-refresh-explainability
Score provenance: direct local · 10/10 direct local ACS baseline inputs
Major-city ranking: not ranked until all 10 direct local baseline inputs are available.
Housing-first durability lens
Trend Direction
Declining
Trend direction compares this snapshot with the prior published score; movement within three points is treated as stable.
September 2026 Conditions Edition
Loading the published county observations.
Media Summary
Saratoga Springs, UT has a 17 / 100 Housing Stability Score with a declining trend signal in the 2024 Score Edition (score date 2024-12-30; method v3-2024-refresh-explainability). The score is a structural housing sustainability measure, not a forecast of future prices.
Citation Language
Saratoga Springs, UT has a 17/100 Housing Stability Score (highly pressured) in the 2024 Score Edition (score date 2024-12-30; method v3-2024-refresh-explainability), 17/100 national percentile, and -3.3 point change versus the prior published snapshot.
Housing Stability Score
17
Highly pressured relative housing sustainability score on a 0-100 scale in the 2024 Score Edition (score date 2024-12-30).
Full City Rank
#25,894 of 30,973
Full national coverage rank across the city index. Same-state full rank: #182 of 332.
Score Movement
-3.3
Point change versus the prior published score snapshot in the 2024 Score Edition.
Leading Signal
Ownership Sustainability
Highest component score in the four-part housing stability framework.
These drivers summarize the main score movement, strongest support, and clearest pressure point for this location.
Score Driver
The composite score declined by 3.3 points versus the prior published snapshot, enough to mark the trend as declining.
Component Driver
Ownership sustainability is the strongest component at 51 / 100, so it contributes the most support to the current housing stability score.
Component Driver
Supply pressure is the main constraint at 12 / 100, so users should read that component as the clearest pressure point in this location.
Score Driver
This score uses 10 observed local inputs and 4 inherited county inputs out of 14 model inputs; 0 inputs are filled from comparable benchmarks when direct observations are unavailable.
Every location includes standardized component evaluation so cross-location comparison stays structurally consistent.
Affordability Stability
Evaluates whether housing costs align sustainably with local income over time using rent burden, price-to-income, and cost growth relative to wages.
Component Score: 29 / 100
State: 60 / 100 percentile (above-average relative stability)
National: 29 / 100 percentile (below-average relative stability)
Market Volatility
Measures housing price consistency and resistance to boom-and-bust cycles that can destabilize long-term resident outcomes.
Component Score: 34 / 100
State: 71 / 100 percentile (above-average relative stability)
National: 34 / 100 percentile (below-average relative stability)
Supply Pressure
Tracks whether housing availability keeps pace with demand through inventory, construction pace, and local supply balance conditions.
Component Score: 12 / 100
State: 37 / 100 percentile (below-average relative stability)
National: 12 / 100 percentile (low relative stability)
Ownership Sustainability
State Comparison
State benchmark: 46 / 100 percentile (higher is more stable), placing this location near the middle of comparable places in this state.
National Comparison
National benchmark: 17 / 100 percentile (higher is more stable), placing this location below most comparable places nationwide.
Scoring uses public, reproducible county-level datasets including ACS, BLS LAUS, FHFA HPI, and Census housing estimates, applied through the same framework across affordability stability, market volatility, supply pressure, and ownership sustainability.
2024 Score Edition • Score snapshot: 2024-12-30 • Method: v3-2024-refresh-explainability
The September 2026 conditions edition provides separate current observations. A future score edition will be published only after a complete, documented methodology refresh.
City coverage combines local city observations with county-level inherited signals when direct city series are unavailable.
Observed Local
10
Inherited Inputs
4
Imputed Inputs
0
Coverage Share
100%
Total model inputs in the published score: 14
Assesses long-term ownership viability through expense escalation, tax burden pressure, insurance overlap, and distress indicators.
Component Score: 51 / 100
State: 39 / 100 percentile (below-average relative stability)
National: 51 / 100 percentile (mid-range relative stability)
September 2026 Conditions Edition
These four source-backed observations are current conditions context. They do not create a new score, change a ranking, or forecast a housing market.
Utah County county-level context
These are county-level observations for Utah County, shown as context for Saratoga Springs. They are not city measurements.
Coverage: rent 1/1, house prices 1/1, housing stock 1/1, permits 1/1 county.
Rent benchmark
$1,363
-97 (-6.6%) from the prior benchmark.
FY 2027 HUD FMR · 1/1 county coverage
House-price movement
+2.8%
Annual county movement; it does not forecast future prices.
2025 FHFA county HPI annual change · 1/1 county coverage
Housing stock
+20%
+20% housing stock and +14.5% population from 2020 to 2025.
2020–2025 Census Vintage · 1/1 county coverage
Permitted units
30.9
7,202 estimated permitted units in 2025; permits are not completed homes.
2025 Census BPS annual estimated units · 1/1 county coverage