Omaha vs Missoula

Category-by-Category Breakdown

Index values shown. National average = 100. Lower is cheaper.

💰 Salary Equivalence

To maintain the same standard of living:

See exact take-home pay: Nebraska salaries · Montana salaries

Living in Omaha vs Missoula

Housing is typically the biggest factor in any cost-of-living comparison. Omaha has a housing index of 76 while Missoula sits at 141 (national average = 100). The median home in Omaha costs $230,000 compared to $460,000 in Missoula, a difference of $230,000. Monthly rent follows a similar pattern: $1,100 in Omaha versus $1,400 in Missoula.

Groceries and everyday expenses show a notable difference: Omaha scores 97 while Missoula scores 103. Both cities are close to the national average for grocery costs.

Healthcare costs in Omaha (96) are lower than Missoula (102). Both are close to the national average.

Median household income in Omaha is $59,612 compared to $49,234 in Missoula. When adjusted for cost of living, income goes further in Omaha.

Relocating: Omaha vs Missoula

If you are considering a move between Omaha (index: 90) and Missoula (index: 115), the 22% cost difference has real implications for your budget. Omaha is the more affordable option, but the right choice depends on your income, career opportunities, and lifestyle priorities.

Housing budget reality: Using the 28% rule (spending no more than 28% of gross income on housing), the median household in Omaha can afford $1,391/month, while the median household in Missoula can afford $1,149/month. With median homes at $230,000 in Omaha versus $460,000 in Missoula, homeownership requires above-median income in the pricier market.

Renting vs buying: At $1,100/month in Omaha and $1,400/month in Missoula, renters face similar costs in both cities. The rent-to-own ratio in each city determines whether renting or buying offers better value for your situation.

Income adjustment: A $75,000 salary goes further in Omaha where costs are 10% below the national average. Before accepting a job in either city, use the salary equivalence data above to understand what you would need to earn to maintain your current standard of living.

Reading These Numbers: Omaha (90) vs Missoula (115)

The cost of living index uses 100 as the national average. Omaha at 90 is 10% below the US average, while Missoula at 115 is 15% above average. There is a meaningful cost gap between these two cities that affects day-to-day budgeting.

Missoula costs meaningfully more than Omaha, with a 25-point composite gap that translates to real differences in rent, groceries, and daily expenses. The biggest category divergence is housing, where Omaha scores 76 and Missoula scores 141. That 65-point gap is the primary driver of the overall cost difference between these two metros. Housing, the largest line item for most households, favors Omaha with indices of 76 versus 141. Median home prices of $230,000 in Omaha and $460,000 in Missoula underscore this gap. Neither city is cheaper across the board: Omaha has an edge in housing and groceries, while Missoula is more affordable for utilities. Your actual savings depend on which categories consume the biggest share of your personal budget.

For renters: With median rents of $1,100/month in Omaha and $1,400/month in Missoula, the annual rent difference is approximately $3,600. Over a 5-year period, that compounds to $18,000 in savings by choosing the more affordable city.

For homebuyers: The $230,000 difference in median home prices between Omaha and Missoula translates to roughly $13,800 per month in mortgage payments at current rates. Factor this into your budget alongside property taxes and insurance, which also vary by location.

🔗 Related Tools

📚 Moving & Relocation Resources

Amazon affiliate links