Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington vs Boston-Cambridge-Newton

Cost of living comparison based on BEA Regional Price Parities. Boston-Cambridge-Newton is 5% more expensive than Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington.

What This Comparison Actually Tells You

The Bureau of Economic Analysis indexes Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX at an overall Regional Price Parity of 103.1 and Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA-NH at 108.3, using the U.S. national average of 100 as the reference point. That puts Boston-Cambridge-Newton 5% more expensive than Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington on a blended basket of goods, services, and rents. The raw index gap of 5.2 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, Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington indexes goods at 102.8, services at 90.7, and rents at 117.9, while Boston-Cambridge-Newton comes in at 99.7, 148.8, and 148.4 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 - Boston-Cambridge-Newton 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 Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington has the same purchasing power as $105,021 in Boston-Cambridge-Newton based on these indexes. The two metros serve populations of roughly 7,807,555 (Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington) and 4,917,661 (Boston-Cambridge-Newton), and median household incomes are $87,155 versus $112,484 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.

Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington
103.1
Cost Index
Boston-Cambridge-Newton
108.3
Cost Index

Category Breakdown

Category Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington Boston-Cambridge-Newton Difference
Overall 103.1 108.3 +5.2
Goods 102.8 99.7 -3.2
Services 90.7 148.8 +58.1
Rents 117.9 148.4 +30.6

Visual Comparison

Overall
Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington
103.1
Boston-Cambridge-Newton
108.3
Goods
Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington
102.8
Boston-Cambridge-Newton
99.7
Services
Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington
90.7
Boston-Cambridge-Newton
148.8
Rents
Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington
117.9
Boston-Cambridge-Newton
148.4

Vertical line = national average (100)

Salary Equivalents

What a salary in Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington would need to be in Boston-Cambridge-Newton for the same purchasing power:

In Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington In Boston-Cambridge-Newton Difference
$50,000 $52,510 +$2,510
$75,000 $78,766 +$3,766
$100,000 $105,021 +$5,021
$150,000 $157,531 +$7,531

Use the salary calculator for custom amounts.

Metro Context

Metric Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington Boston-Cambridge-Newton
Population 7,807,555 4,917,661
Median Income $87,155 $112,484
Data Year 2024 2024

Frequently Asked Questions

Is Boston-Cambridge-Newton more expensive than Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington?
Boston-Cambridge-Newton is 5% more expensive than Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington. The overall cost index is 108.3 vs 103.1 (national average = 100).
What salary in Boston-Cambridge-Newton equals $100K in Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington?
A $100,000 salary in Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington has the same purchasing power as $105,021 in Boston-Cambridge-Newton. This is based on the BEA Regional Price Parity indexes.
How do rents compare between Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington and Boston-Cambridge-Newton?
Rents in Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington are indexed at 117.9 while Boston-Cambridge-Newton is at 148.4 (national average = 100). Boston-Cambridge-Newton 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