Portland-South Portland, ME
Executive Summary
Portland's housing market shows average risk, ranking 136th of 274 metros. The market recently entered Expansion. Current conditions are balanced with stable liquidity. Broad-based growth with healthy fundamentals.
Portland experienced a market correction from early 2025 through mid-2025. The market has since normalized and entered Expansion.
Inventory is roughly flat (+3% YoY) with homes selling at a normal pace — a balanced market.
Rent growth is roughly keeping pace with price appreciation, suggesting valuations are not stretched.
Cycle Phase
Normal growth conditions with balanced fundamentals
Key Dynamics
Risk is primarily driven by affordability and permits per capita, while migration provides the most support.
Top Drivers
Market Signals
Inventory is roughly flat (+3% YoY) with homes selling at a normal pace — a balanced market.
Liquidity
Valuation
Factor Details
12-month HPI change — higher = overheating
YoY permit change — higher = supply pressure
Permits per 1,000 residents — higher = overbuilding risk
Mortgage payment / income — higher = more burdened
12-month employment change (risk inverted)
Net AGI migration (risk inverted)
National Context
Credit Conditions
Credit Regime
Normal expansion. Credit is available, transactions are healthy — no constraints on current growth momentum.
Supply Pipeline
Supply Regime
Supply pipeline is building up while credit remains available. New units are accumulating in the system — watch for delivery pressure in coming quarters.
Local Signals
Metro Permit Activity
Permit Activity
ElevatedRaw signal — not the composite percentile
Relative to 2016–2019 norms for this metro
Above-normal building activity with healthy demand. Balanced expansion — the market is absorbing new supply without stress.
Employment Concentration
Employment
ConcentratedInternal Structure
Portland's 3 counties show similar risk profiles — the metro-level score is broadly representative.
Portland, ME shows Low internal divergence — county-level differences are minor and the metro composite is broadly representative. Sagadahoc County contributes the most structural risk (Average, driven by permit growth), while Cumberland County anchors the lower end (Average).
| County | Score ▼ |
|---|---|
Cumberland CountyStabilizer | 50 |
Sagadahoc CountyRisk Driver | 50 |
York County | 50 |
Score History
| Month | Score |
|---|---|
| 2026-05 | 58 |
| 2025-12 | 66 |
| 2025-11 | 60 |
| 2025-09 | 62 |
| 2025-08 | 59 |
| 2025-06 | 59 |
| 2025-04 | 56 |
| 2025-01 | 56 |
| 2024-12 | 51 |
| 2024-10 | 47 |
| 2024-08 | 50 |
| 2024-07 | 47 |
| 2024-05 | 51 |
| 2024-03 | 52 |
| 2024-02 | 52 |
| 2023-12 | 53 |
| 2023-11 | 53 |
| 2023-09 | 54 |
| 2023-07 | 54 |
| 2023-05 | 52 |
| 2023-03 | 53 |
| 2023-02 | 52 |
| 2022-12 | 52 |
| 2022-11 | 53 |
| 2022-10 | 55 |
| 2022-08 | 56 |
| 2022-05 | 58 |
| 2022-02 | 54 |
| 2021-12 | 52 |
| 2021-10 | 50 |
| 2021-09 | 50 |
| 2021-07 | 44 |
| 2021-04 | 46 |
| 2021-03 | 52 |
| 2021-01 | 53 |
| 2020-12 | 55 |
| 2020-10 | 55 |
| 2020-09 | 53 |
| 2020-07 | 58 |
| 2020-04 | 53 |
| 2020-02 | 46 |
| 2020-01 | 45 |
| 2019-11 | 47 |
| 2019-08 | 45 |
| 2019-05 | 49 |
| 2019-03 | 47 |
| 2019-01 | 47 |