Executive Summary
Tulsa's housing market shows average risk, ranking 104th of 273 metros. The market recently entered Expansion. Current conditions are balanced with stable liquidity. Broad-based growth with healthy fundamentals.
Tulsa experienced a market correction from mid-2024 through late 2024. 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 price momentum and affordability, 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
NormalRaw signal — not the composite percentile
Relative to 2016–2019 norms for this metro
Supply and demand are in equilibrium. No unusual activity on either side of the market.
Employment Concentration
Employment
ConcentratedInternal Structure
Tulsa's 7 counties show similar risk profiles — the metro-level score is broadly representative.
Tulsa, OK shows Low internal divergence — county-level differences are minor and the metro composite is broadly representative. Rogers County contributes the most structural risk (Elevated, driven by permits per capita), while Wagoner County anchors the lower end (Average).
| County | Score ▼ |
|---|---|
Rogers CountyRisk Driver | 68 |
Creek County | 61 |
Osage County<5% | 58 |
Tulsa County | 50 |
Wagoner CountyStabilizer | 47 |
Pawnee County<5% | 39 |
Okmulgee County<5% | 24 |
Score History
| Month | Score |
|---|---|
| 2026-06 | 54 |
| 2025-12 | 46 |
| 2025-10 | 36 |
| 2025-09 | 38 |
| 2025-07 | 42 |
| 2025-06 | 41 |
| 2025-04 | 41 |
| 2025-01 | 48 |
| 2024-12 | 43 |
| 2024-10 | 42 |
| 2024-09 | 37 |
| 2024-07 | 39 |
| 2024-05 | 40 |
| 2024-03 | 38 |
| 2023-12 | 40 |
| 2023-11 | 40 |
| 2023-10 | 39 |
| 2023-08 | 40 |
| 2023-07 | 42 |
| 2023-05 | 43 |
| 2023-03 | 43 |
| 2023-01 | 42 |
| 2022-10 | 46 |
| 2022-08 | 46 |
| 2022-06 | 50 |
| 2022-04 | 51 |
| 2022-01 | 51 |
| 2021-11 | 48 |
| 2021-10 | 48 |
| 2021-08 | 48 |
| 2021-05 | 46 |
| 2021-04 | 46 |
| 2021-02 | 44 |
| 2020-12 | 41 |
| 2020-10 | 43 |
| 2020-09 | 42 |
| 2020-07 | 41 |
| 2020-04 | 40 |
| 2020-02 | 47 |
| 2019-11 | 43 |
| 2019-09 | 37 |
| 2019-07 | 40 |
| 2019-04 | 35 |
| 2019-03 | 42 |
| 2019-01 | 44 |