Chicago-Naperville-Elgin vs Ames

Cost of living comparison based on BEA Regional Price Parities. Ames is 14.3% less expensive than Chicago-Naperville-Elgin.

What This Comparison Actually Tells You

The Bureau of Economic Analysis indexes Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, IL-IN at an overall Regional Price Parity of 103.6 and Ames, IA at 88.8, using the U.S. national average of 100 as the reference point. That puts Ames 14.3% less expensive than Chicago-Naperville-Elgin on a blended basket of goods, services, and rents. The raw index gap of 14.8 points matters more than the headline comparison because it flows directly into salary-equivalent math that families use for relocation, job offers, and remote-work arbitrage decisions.

Inside the breakdown, Chicago-Naperville-Elgin indexes goods at 107.3, services at 83.6, and rents at 112.0, while Ames comes in at 93.7, 83.0, and 69.2 on the same three categories. The rent line carries the largest weight in the BEA methodology, so a metro with a higher rent index almost always ends up more expensive overall - Chicago-Naperville-Elgin carries the heavier rent load here, and that tends to dominate household budget experience on the ground.

In salary terms, a $100,000 income in Chicago-Naperville-Elgin has the same purchasing power as $85,747 in Ames based on these indexes. The two metros serve populations of roughly 9,359,555 (Chicago-Naperville-Elgin) and 125,261 (Ames), and median household incomes are $88,850 versus $71,090 respectively - so the right way to read this comparison is never the index alone, but the ratio of your expected local salary to the rent and services mix. For any serious relocation or remote-work decision, pair this BEA comparison with BLS occupation-specific wage data, HUD Fair Market Rent tables, and state tax treatment before committing.

Chicago-Naperville-Elgin
103.6
Cost Index
Ames
88.8
Cost Index

Category Breakdown

Category Chicago-Naperville-Elgin Ames Difference
Overall 103.6 88.8 -14.8
Goods 107.3 93.7 -13.5
Services 83.6 83.0 -0.6
Rents 112.0 69.2 -42.8

Visual Comparison

Overall
Chicago-Naperville-Elgin
103.6
Ames
88.8
Goods
Chicago-Naperville-Elgin
107.3
Ames
93.7
Services
Chicago-Naperville-Elgin
83.6
Ames
83.0
Rents
Chicago-Naperville-Elgin
112.0
Ames
69.2

Vertical line = national average (100)

Salary Equivalents

What a salary in Chicago-Naperville-Elgin would need to be in Ames for the same purchasing power:

In Chicago-Naperville-Elgin In Ames Difference
$50,000 $42,874 $-7,126
$75,000 $64,311 $-10,689
$100,000 $85,747 $-14,253
$150,000 $128,621 $-21,379

Use the salary calculator for custom amounts.

Metro Context

Metric Chicago-Naperville-Elgin Ames
Population 9,359,555 125,261
Median Income $88,850 $71,090
Data Year 2024 2024

Frequently Asked Questions

Is Ames more expensive than Chicago-Naperville-Elgin?
Ames is 14.3% less expensive than Chicago-Naperville-Elgin. The overall cost index is 88.8 vs 103.6 (national average = 100).
What salary in Ames equals $100K in Chicago-Naperville-Elgin?
A $100,000 salary in Chicago-Naperville-Elgin has the same purchasing power as $85,747 in Ames. This is based on the BEA Regional Price Parity indexes.
How do rents compare between Chicago-Naperville-Elgin and Ames?
Rents in Chicago-Naperville-Elgin are indexed at 112.0 while Ames is at 69.2 (national average = 100). Chicago-Naperville-Elgin has higher rents.

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Price Parities (2024). Index where national average = 100.

Data sourced from official public datasets. See our methodology for details. Retrieved and formatted by PlainCost Editorial

Every figure on PlainCost is rendered directly from BEA Regional Price Parity source data, no number is typed in by an editor. This page draws directly on BEA Regional Price Parity source data, no figure is typed in by an editor. See our editorial standards & corrections policy, the methodology behind these numbers, our changelog, or report a data error. Data current as of 2026-05-15. Rankings measure the published cost-of-living index only; we don't recommend where to live or rate any metro's quality of life.