Southern Metros Dominate the List of Biggest Boomtowns Through the COVID-19 Era
From a boom in new business applications to rising (then falling) unemployment rates, the COVID-19 pandemic brought unprecedented business trends. With life returning more to normal, we looked at which metros boomed the most between 2019 and 2021 — and which didn’t.
We ranked and scored the 100 largest metros across eight unique metrics grouped into three categories: people and housing, work and earnings, and business and economy. Then, stick around for tips on starting a business in a boomtown.
On this page
Key findings
- Southern metros dominate the list of the biggest boomtowns. Metros in Texas, Florida, North Carolina and Virginia occupy eight of the top 10 spots in the LendingTree boomtown rankings.
- Among the 100 largest metros, Austin, Texas, has boomed the most during the pandemic. The number of housing units here jumped 12.9% between 2019 and 2021 — the second-highest among the 100 metros — and the population jumped by 5.6% in the same period — the third-highest — giving the central Texas metro the highest people and housing score.
- We head west for the second-biggest boomtown: Provo, Utah. The north-central Utah metro outpaced Austin in our work and earnings category, led by its No. 1 growth in workforce size (8.4%). In other categories, Provo had the greatest population growth between 2019 and 2021 (7.2%) and the second-biggest jump in gross domestic product (13.2%) in the same period.
- We head back South for our next-biggest boomtown: Lakeland, Fla. Lakeland had top-five finishes in individual metrics in all three categories: housing growth (7.7%), median earnings (16.3%) and new employer identification numbers (118.4%).
- The most sluggish metro — despite being known for its wonderful beaches — is Honolulu. The Hawaii metro finished last in our work and earnings and business and economy categories with the biggest jump in the unemployment rate (119%), the third-smallest jump in median earnings (1.7%) and the third-biggest decrease in annual GDP (5.3%) between 2019 and 2021. Joining Honolulu at the bottom are Hartford, Conn., and Los Angeles.
Many of the biggest boomtowns are in the South
For the biggest boomtowns in the U.S., look to the South. Of the top 10, eight are in Texas, Florida, North Carolina and Virginia.
| Rank | Metro |
|---|---|
| 1 | Austin, TX |
| 2 | Provo, UT |
| 3 | Lakeland, FL |
| 4 | Boise, ID |
| 5 | Jacksonville, FL |
| 6 | North Port, FL |
| 7 | Durham, NC |
| 8 | Raleigh, NC |
| 9 | Charlotte, NC |
| 10 | Virginia Beach, VA |
Source: LendingTree analysis of various sources.
But why the South?
“People — especially work-from-home employees — are leaving for warm weather and lower taxes,” LendingTree chief credit analyst Matt Schulz says. “Especially for Florida and Texas, those two factors have been instrumental in driving a lot of the growth.”
Of course, diving into the top-ranking boomtowns — and identifying specific reasons for their growth between 2019 and 2021 — can paint a clearer picture (more on that below).
Austin, Texas, is the biggest boomtown
Which metros boomed the most during the pandemic? Among the 100 largest, Austin, Texas, topped the list. In particular, Austin dominated our people and housing category. Broken down, the metro ranked second for its jump in the number of housing units between 2019 and 2021 (12.9%) and third for its population growth in the same period (5.6%).
| Rank | Metro | Total population change | % of population who moved from another county, state or country | Change in housing units | Category score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Austin, TX | 5.6% | 17.8% | 12.9% | 100.0 |
| 2 | Provo, UT | 7.2% | 15.9% | 7.6% | 85.7 |
| 3 | Boise City, ID | 7.0% | 14.7% | 6.6% | 78.3 |
| 4 | Lakeland, FL | 4.0% | 15.2% | 7.7% | 69.4 |
| 5 | Nashville, TN | 4.1% | 16.1% | 6.6% | 69.3 |
Source: LendingTree analysis of U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey data, measuring changes between 2019 and 2021.
Austin also performed well in our work and earnings category. Median wages in Austin grew by 14.4% between 2019 and 2021, while the active workforce grew by 5.5% in the same period. Perhaps most dramatically, looking at our business and economy category, the metro’s gross domestic product (GDP) — the total value of the goods produced and services provided in the metro — in 2021 was 13.0% higher than in 2019.
| Rank | Metro | Annual GDP in 2019 | Annual GDP in 2021 | Difference | % change |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | San Jose, CA | $324,594,517 | $384,702,320 | $60,107,803 | 18.5% |
| 2 | Provo, UT | $27,512,658 | $31,135,789 | $3,623,131 | 13.2% |
| 3 | Austin, TX | $146,516,364 | $165,604,422 | $19,088,058 | 13.0% |
| 4 | Boise, ID | $32,869,996 | $36,295,460 | $3,425,464 | 10.4% |
| 5 | Seattle, WA | $375,997,193 | $413,816,976 | $37,819,783 | 10.1% |
Source: LendingTree analysis of U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis data.
Schulz attributes Austin’s growth to several factors.
Texas in general drew many new residents during the pandemic, and Austin was a hot spot for Silicon Valley tech companies moving out of the Bay Area due to its lower taxes. Not only did these companies bring new jobs to the area, but relocating remote workers also flocked to Austin due to its lower cost of living compared to other major metros.
Provo, Utah, and Lakeland, Fla., also boomed
Following Austin, Provo, Utah, is the second-largest boomtown in the U.S. Looking at individual metrics across categories, this metro had the biggest population growth (7.2%) and workforce change (8.4%) between 2019 and 2021. It also fell in the top five for increased housing units (7.6%) and GDP growth (13.2%).
| Rank | Metro | Number of people in the workforce in 2019 | Number of people in the workforce in 2021 | Difference | % change |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Provo, UT | 327,547 | 354,931 | 27,384 | 8.4% |
| 2 | North Port, FL | 366,030 | 389,783 | 23,753 | 6.5% |
| 3 | Boise, ID | 383,225 | 406,321 | 23,096 | 6.0% |
| 4 | Fort Myers, FL | 337,550 | 356,843 | 19,293 | 5.7% |
| 5 | Palm Bay, FL | 276,869 | 292,469 | 15,600 | 5.6% |
Source: LendingTree analysis of U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey data.
One reason Provo was so resilient was Utah’s proactiveness in the face of the pandemic. In fact, Utah was among the first states to release a comprehensive economic recovery plan, which has been linked to Utah’s ability to outperform other states’ economies throughout 2020.
Utah’s growth throughout the COVID-19 pandemic is also attributed to its income equality — which helps promote spending and can lead to a more educated and skilled workforce. Provo ranks among the metros with the smallest income gaps, according to an earlier MagnifyMoney study. As of 2020, the median household in Provo earned $76,864, while the top 5% earned $388,322 — this is the third-smallest gap among the largest 100 metros.
Lakeland, Fla., squeaked into third place on our list of boomtowns. While Lakeland appeared on the same number of top-five lists as fourth-place Boise, Idaho, it performed very well across most metrics. The metro fell within the top five for its housing growth, booming by 7.7%. Entrepreneurs applied for 27,607 employer identification numbers (EINs) between 2020 and 2021, which is 118.4% more than between 2018 and 2019. New local businesses included:
- A plant nursery
- Beauty services
- A kombucha brewery
- An indoor cycling center
- Many bars and eateries
This boom resulted in a 16.3% increase in median earnings between 2019 and 2021.
Which metros have seen the smallest boomtown growth?
On the other end of the list, Honolulu was the most sluggish metro during the pandemic. The infamous Hawaii metro saw its unemployment rate more than double between December 2019 and December 2021, while its GDP shrunk by 5.3%. Meanwhile, median wages rose by a mere 1.7% during the same period — representing the third-smallest gain on our list.
Given that Honolulu is a tourist mecca, it may be unsurprising that it struggled throughout the pandemic. According to the Department of Business, Economic Development & Tourism Visitor Statistics, an average of almost 14,700 domestic passengers flew into Oahu — the island that’s home to Honolulu — daily in July 2019, the state’s busiest month. That number dropped to 1,600 the following year, though it dipped to an average of 280 daily passengers at its lowest in April 2020.
Even after travel began picking up again, Hawaii had strict entry rules, including a negative COVID-19 test within 72 hours of departure or a 10-day quarantine upon arrival. These requirements may have deterred many would-be tourists.
| Rank | Metro |
|---|---|
| 1 | Honolulu, HI |
| 2 | Hartford, CT |
| 3 | Los Angeles, CA |
| 4 | Bridgeport, CT |
| 5 | Oxnard, CA |
| 6 | Las Vegas, NV |
| 7 | San Diego, CA |
| 8 | San Francisco, CA |
| 9 | New Orleans, LA |
| 10 | New York, NY |
Source: LendingTree analysis of various sources.
Hartford, Conn., ranked second. Although the metro didn’t hit the bottom five for any of our metrics, it showed lackluster growth across all the metrics. Its population grew by just 0.6% between 2019 and 2021. Meanwhile, unemployment rose by 36.4% and its annual GDP fell by 2.2% in the same period.
Meanwhile, Los Angeles ranked third among the most sluggish metros. The California metro lost more than 200,000 residents between 2019 and 2021, and only 6.1% of its 2021 population moved there from elsewhere — the second-lowest rate on our list. Among the potential reasons for Los Angeles’ declining population, rising home prices and an increase in work-from-home options are likely to blame.
Full rankings
| Rank | Metro | Total population change | % of population who moved from another county, state or country | Change in housing units | Category score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Austin, TX | 5.6% | 17.8% | 12.9% | 100.0 |
| 2 | Provo, UT | 7.2% | 15.9% | 7.6% | 85.7 |
| 3 | Boise, ID | 7.0% | 14.7% | 6.6% | 78.3 |
| 4 | Lakeland, FL | 4.0% | 15.2% | 7.7% | 69.4 |
| 5 | Nashville, TN | 4.1% | 16.1% | 6.6% | 69.3 |
| 6 | Colorado Springs, CO | 2.3% | 20.1% | 5.5% | 68.9 |
| 7 | San Antonio, TX | 2.0% | 11.9% | 13.3% | 68.7 |
| 8 | Jacksonville, FL | 5.0% | 14.9% | 5.9% | 67.9 |
| 9 | Virginia Beach, VA | 2.3% | 20.3% | 3.5% | 63.9 |
| 10 | Raleigh, NC | 4.1% | 14.6% | 5.8% | 62.9 |
| 11 | Charleston, SC | 1.4% | 16.8% | 7.0% | 60.4 |
| 12 | Orlando, FL | 3.2% | 17.0% | 3.7% | 59.1 |
| 13 | Richmond, VA | 2.1% | 17.3% | 4.8% | 58.2 |
| 14 | North Port, FL | 2.7% | 15.7% | 5.1% | 57.6 |
| 15 | Durham, NC | 1.5% | 19.4% | 3.4% | 57.1 |
| 16 | Deltona, FL | 2.5% | 14.8% | 5.4% | 55.1 |
| 17 | Denver, CO | 0.2% | 20.0% | 4.0% | 54.9 |
| 18 | Oklahoma City, OK | 2.3% | 14.6% | 5.6% | 54.4 |
| 19 | Ogden, UT | 3.7% | 13.5% | 4.6% | 54.3 |
| 20 | Washington, DC | 1.2% | 15.7% | 5.2% | 51.1 |
| 20 | Charlotte, NC | 2.4% | 13.9% | 5.1% | 51.1 |
| 22 | Madison, WI | 2.8% | 13.7% | 4.8% | 51.0 |
| 23 | Atlanta, GA | 2.1% | 15.8% | 3.7% | 50.6 |
| 24 | Spokane, WA | 4.4% | 13.8% | 2.1% | 50.5 |
| 25 | El Paso, TX | 3.3% | 10.4% | 6.5% | 49.5 |
| 26 | Greenville, SC | 2.2% | 14.4% | 4.4% | 49.2 |
| 27 | Dallas, TX | 2.5% | 13.3% | 4.9% | 49.1 |
| 28 | Salt Lake City, UT | 2.5% | 11.1% | 6.9% | 49.0 |
| 29 | Cape Coral, FL | 2.3% | 13.4% | 5.0% | 48.6 |
| 30 | Des Moines, IA | 2.8% | 13.3% | 3.8% | 47.5 |
| 31 | Columbia, SC | '-0.3% | 19.0% | 2.5% | 45.3 |
| 32 | Harrisburg, PA | 3.2% | 14.7% | 1.1% | 44.6 |
| 33 | Honolulu, HI | 2.7% | 11.1% | 5.0% | 44.4 |
| 34 | Indianapolis, IN | 2.5% | 13.0% | 3.4% | 44.2 |
| 35 | Palm Bay, FL | 2.4% | 12.3% | 4.0% | 43.6 |
| 36 | Minneapolis, MN | 1.4% | 13.9% | 4.1% | 43.4 |
| 37 | Kansas City, MO | 2.1% | 13.9% | 2.6% | 41.9 |
| 38 | Columbus, OH | 1.4% | 12.8% | 4.3% | 40.9 |
| 39 | Omaha, NE | 2.4% | 12.3% | 3.2% | 40.5 |
| 40 | Houston, TX | 2.0% | 10.8% | 5.0% | 40.3 |
| 41 | Knoxville, TN | 2.7% | 13.0% | 1.8% | 39.9 |
| 42 | Sacramento, CA | 2.0% | 12.9% | 2.7% | 39.3 |
| 43 | Albany, NY | 2.1% | 13.6% | 1.8% | 39.0 |
| 44 | Providence, RI | 3.2% | 10.4% | 3.1% | 38.6 |
| 45 | Worcester, MA | 3.3% | 9.0% | 4.1% | 38.1 |
| 46 | Allentown, PA | 2.5% | 12.0% | 2.3% | 37.9 |
| 47 | Portland, OR | 0.7% | 14.2% | 2.9% | 37.6 |
| 48 | Tampa, FL | 0.8% | 14.0% | 2.7% | 36.7 |
| 48 | Stockton, CA | 3.6% | 9.6% | 2.6% | 36.7 |
| 50 | Tulsa, OK | 2.6% | 12.6% | 1.3% | 36.6 |
| 50 | Augusta, GA | 0.9% | 14.6% | 1.8% | 36.6 |
| 52 | Philadelphia, PA | 2.1% | 10.6% | 3.8% | 36.5 |
| 53 | Boston, MA | 0.6% | 13.2% | 3.2% | 35.1 |
| 53 | Seattle, WA | 0.8% | 14.0% | 2.1% | 35.1 |
| 55 | Cincinnati, OH | 1.9% | 12.8% | 1.5% | 34.6 |
| 56 | Baltimore, MD | 1.4% | 12.5% | 2.3% | 34.0 |
| 57 | Grand Rapids, MI | 1.3% | 12.0% | 2.5% | 33.0 |
| 58 | New York, NY | 2.9% | 8.9% | 2.9% | 32.6 |
| 59 | Baton Rouge, LA | 2.0% | 11.0% | 1.9% | 31.4 |
| 60 | Tucson, AZ | 0.5% | 13.1% | 1.8% | 30.2 |
| 61 | Little Rock, AR | 0.7% | 11.5% | 2.7% | 29.5 |
| 62 | Louisville, KY | 1.5% | 9.9% | 2.4% | 27.5 |
| 63 | Dayton, OH | 0.7% | 13.5% | 0.0% | 27.1 |
| 64 | Birmingham, AL | 2.2% | 10.4% | 0.7% | 27.0 |
| 65 | Rochester, NY | 1.4% | 10.5% | 1.6% | 26.6 |
| 66 | Greensboro, NC | 0.9% | 12.4% | 0.6% | 26.5 |
| 67 | Bridgeport, CT | 1.7% | 9.7% | 1.4% | 25.3 |
| 68 | Phoenix, AZ | 0.0% | 10.8% | 2.9% | 25.0 |
| 69 | Buffalo, NY | 3.0% | 7.2% | 1.7% | 24.7 |
| 70 | Wichita, KS | 1.2% | 11.0% | 0.8% | 24.6 |
| 71 | Winston-Salem, NC | 0.8% | 11.6% | 0.7% | 24.2 |
| 72 | Scranton, PA | 2.5% | 9.9% | '-0.4% | 23.7 |
| 73 | Las Vegas, NV | 1.1% | 10.4% | 1.1% | 23.6 |
| 74 | McAllen, TX | 1.3% | 5.2% | 5.5% | 23.4 |
| 75 | Syracuse, NY | 1.5% | 10.7% | 0.1% | 22.7 |
| 76 | Albuquerque, NM | 0.7% | 10.3% | 1.4% | 22.5 |
| 76 | Springfield, MA | '-0.3% | 11.3% | 2.0% | 22.5 |
| 78 | Chattanooga, TN | 0.2% | 13.0% | '-0.5% | 22.0 |
| 79 | New Orleans, LA | '-0.7% | 10.9% | 2.7% | 21.6 |
| 80 | Jackson, MS | '-1.4% | 12.0% | 2.5% | 21.2 |
| 81 | Hartford, CT | 0.6% | 10.3% | 1.1% | 20.7 |
| 82 | Bakersfield, CA | 1.9% | 8.8% | 0.3% | 20.2 |
| 83 | Chicago, IL | 0.6% | 8.7% | 2.2% | 19.7 |
| 84 | New Haven, CT | 1.0% | 9.6% | 0.6% | 19.3 |
| 85 | Toledo, OH | 0.4% | 11.1% | 0.1% | 19.2 |
| 86 | Miami, FL | '-1.2% | 9.4% | 3.9% | 18.9 |
| 87 | St. Louis, MO | 0.2% | 11.4% | '-0.1% | 18.4 |
| 88 | Pittsburgh, PA | 1.6% | 9.2% | '-0.3% | 17.7 |
| 89 | Riverside, CA | 0.1% | 10.6% | 0.4% | 17.2 |
| 90 | Cleveland, OH | 1.3% | 8.2% | 0.6% | 16.8 |
| 91 | Fresno, CA | 1.4% | 6.7% | 1.6% | 16.0 |
| 92 | Milwaukee, WI | '-0.6% | 9.5% | 1.8% | 15.7 |
| 93 | San Francisco, CA | '-2.3% | 12.8% | 1.3% | 15.5 |
| 94 | Akron, OH | '-0.5% | 10.7% | 0.5% | 15.4 |
| 95 | Detroit, MI | 1.1% | 8.5% | '-0.5% | 13.1 |
| 96 | San Jose, CA | '-1.9% | 11.4% | 1.1% | 12.9 |
| 97 | San Diego, CA | '-1.6% | 10.1% | 0.3% | 8.3 |
| 98 | Memphis, TN | '-0.6% | 9.0% | '-0.5% | 6.9 |
| 99 | Oxnard, CA | '-0.7% | 7.4% | 1.1% | 6.8 |
| 100 | Los Angeles, CA | '-1.6% | 6.1% | 1.3% | 0.0 |
Source: LendingTree analysis of U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey data, measuring changes between 2019 and 2021.
| Rank | Metro | Change in workforce size | Change in unemployment rate | Change in median earnings | Category score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Provo, UT | 8.4% | '-36.8% | 11.7% | 100.0 |
| 2 | Boise, ID | 6.0% | '-33.3% | 15.3% | 99.7 |
| 3 | Chattanooga, TN | 0.6% | '-12.1% | 21.1% | 88.7 |
| 4 | North Port, FL | 6.5% | 19.2% | 15.4% | 86.2 |
| 5 | Spokane, WA | 4.6% | '-25.0% | 11.6% | 82.9 |
| 6 | Indianapolis, IN | 2.6% | '-55.6% | 10.1% | 81.0 |
| 7 | Dayton, OH | 0.6% | '-11.1% | 18.1% | 80.6 |
| 8 | Austin, TX | 5.5% | 20.8% | 14.4% | 79.5 |
| 9 | Tucson, AZ | 1.9% | '-31.7% | 12.9% | 78.7 |
| 10 | Palm Bay, FL | 5.6% | 18.5% | 13.4% | 78.4 |
| 11 | Salt Lake City, UT | 2.4% | '-35.0% | 11.7% | 78.3 |
| 12 | Scranton, PA | 0.9% | '-14.3% | 16.1% | 78.0 |
| 13 | Ogden, UT | 3.6% | '-35.0% | 9.8% | 77.8 |
| 14 | Stockton, CA | 4.4% | 12.3% | 13.9% | 76.9 |
| 15 | Knoxville, TN | 3.9% | 0.0% | 13.0% | 76.3 |
| 16 | Durham, NC | 0.7% | '-13.8% | 15.7% | 76.1 |
| 17 | Phoenix, AZ | 0.8% | '-35.1% | 12.5% | 74.8 |
| 18 | Raleigh, NC | 3.6% | '-10.3% | 11.5% | 74.6 |
| 19 | Lakeland, FL | 3.6% | 36.7% | 16.3% | 73.2 |
| 20 | Allentown, PA | 1.8% | '-13.0% | 11.9% | 70.2 |
| 20 | Cape Coral, FL | 5.7% | 32.0% | 11.5% | 70.2 |
| 22 | Jacksonville, FL | 3.8% | 23.1% | 12.8% | 69.1 |
| 23 | Buffalo, NY | 2.7% | '-29.8% | 7.7% | 67.7 |
| 24 | Rochester, NY | 0.3% | '-23.3% | 11.6% | 67.0 |
| 25 | McAllen, TX | '-1.1% | 11.4% | 17.4% | 66.5 |
| 26 | Philadelphia, PA | 1.8% | 5.0% | 12.5% | 66.2 |
| 27 | Worcester, MA | 4.4% | 33.3% | 11.5% | 64.8 |
| 27 | Madison, WI | 0.5% | '-39.1% | 8.5% | 64.8 |
| 29 | Charlotte, NC | 1.8% | 3.2% | 11.3% | 63.9 |
| 30 | Tampa, FL | 2.2% | 26.9% | 13.5% | 63.8 |
| 31 | Virginia Beach, VA | 2.5% | 10.7% | 10.9% | 63.3 |
| 32 | Fresno, CA | 3.2% | 1.4% | 8.6% | 63.0 |
| 33 | Toledo, OH | '-0.2% | '-10.0% | 12.1% | 62.8 |
| 34 | Columbus, OH | '-0.6% | '-15.2% | 11.6% | 61.6 |
| 34 | Greensboro, NC | 3.2% | 5.7% | 8.7% | 61.6 |
| 36 | Cleveland, OH | 1.4% | 8.6% | 10.9% | 60.1 |
| 37 | Albuquerque, NM | '-1.7% | 9.5% | 15.2% | 59.5 |
| 37 | El Paso, TX | 4.5% | 30.6% | 8.8% | 59.5 |
| 39 | Deltona, FL | 0.1% | 26.7% | 14.7% | 59.5 |
| 40 | Oklahoma City, OK | 3.7% | '-42.9% | 1.3% | 59.2 |
| 41 | San Antonio, TX | 1.2% | 32.1% | 13.5% | 59.0 |
| 42 | Albany, NY | '-0.7% | '-30.6% | 8.8% | 58.7 |
| 43 | Omaha, NE | 1.2% | '-40.7% | 4.7% | 58.4 |
| 44 | Minneapolis, MN | 0.7% | '-16.7% | 8.3% | 58.3 |
| 45 | Nashville, TN | 2.0% | 12.5% | 9.6% | 58.0 |
| 46 | Syracuse, NY | '-1.0% | '-31.8% | 8.8% | 57.8 |
| 47 | Kansas City, MO | 1.8% | '-19.4% | 6.0% | 57.6 |
| 48 | Little Rock, AR | 1.6% | '-19.4% | 6.2% | 57.3 |
| 49 | Winston-Salem, NC | 0.5% | '-6.3% | 9.3% | 57.0 |
| 50 | Atlanta, GA | 2.2% | '-14.8% | 5.8% | 56.9 |
| 51 | Cincinnati, OH | 0.0% | '-12.5% | 9.1% | 56.4 |
| 52 | Tulsa, OK | 0.4% | '-40.6% | 4.6% | 55.0 |
| 53 | Washington, DC | '-0.1% | 26.9% | 13.0% | 54.3 |
| 54 | Richmond, VA | '-0.6% | 23.1% | 13.1% | 54.1 |
| 55 | Detroit, MI | 0.1% | 16.2% | 11.1% | 53.5 |
| 55 | Akron, OH | '-3.1% | '-15.0% | 11.9% | 53.5 |
| 57 | Columbia, SC | '-0.5% | '-20.8% | 7.0% | 52.3 |
| 58 | Colorado Springs, CO | 1.5% | 53.6% | 12.6% | 51.4 |
| 59 | Louisville, KY | 0.3% | '-12.1% | 6.3% | 50.8 |
| 60 | Dallas, TX | 2.4% | 24.1% | 7.3% | 50.3 |
| 60 | Orlando, FL | 1.6% | 52.0% | 11.8% | 50.3 |
| 62 | Miami, FL | '-1.7% | 18.2% | 12.5% | 50.2 |
| 62 | Providence, RI | 3.3% | 18.8% | 5.4% | 50.2 |
| 62 | Memphis, TN | '-1.3% | 5.1% | 10.4% | 50.2 |
| 62 | Greenville, SC | 0.0% | 38.1% | 12.4% | 50.2 |
| 66 | Des Moines, IA | 1.8% | 3.7% | 5.7% | 50.0 |
| 67 | Portland, OR | '-0.4% | 21.4% | 10.7% | 49.4 |
| 67 | Pittsburgh, PA | 0.5% | '-13.0% | 5.3% | 49.4 |
| 69 | Sacramento, CA | 1.1% | 37.5% | 10.3% | 48.9 |
| 69 | Augusta, GA | 2.5% | '-6.9% | 3.1% | 48.9 |
| 71 | Seattle, WA | '-0.9% | 29.6% | 11.9% | 48.3 |
| 72 | Milwaukee WI | '-1.2% | '-29.0% | 5.3% | 47.9 |
| 73 | Baton Rouge, LA | '-1.1% | '-28.9% | 5.1% | 47.7 |
| 74 | Harrisburg, PA | 0.2% | '-15.8% | 4.6% | 47.1 |
| 75 | Wichita, KS | '-0.4% | '-3.1% | 6.7% | 46.6 |
| 76 | St. Louis, MO | '-0.5% | '-9.1% | 6.0% | 46.2 |
| 77 | Riverside, CA | 1.5% | 45.7% | 9.3% | 45.6 |
| 77 | Baltimore, MD | 0.9% | 31.0% | 8.5% | 45.6 |
| 79 | San Jose, CA | '-3.1% | 36.4% | 14.6% | 45.3 |
| 80 | Bakersfield, CA | 2.6% | 6.9% | 2.9% | 44.8 |
| 81 | Springfield, MA | '-6.0% | 8.3% | 13.9% | 41.1 |
| 82 | Houston, TX | 1.3% | 33.3% | 6.2% | 40.8 |
| 83 | New Haven, CT | 1.9% | 32.3% | 4.3% | 38.7 |
| 84 | Birmingham, AL | 1.7% | 18.2% | 3.0% | 38.5 |
| 84 | Grand Rapids, MI | '-0.5% | 45.8% | 9.4% | 38.5 |
| 86 | Denver, CO | 1.0% | 82.6% | 11.1% | 37.8 |
| 87 | Bridgeport, CT | 3.6% | 40.6% | 2.2% | 36.9 |
| 88 | Chicago, IL | 0.1% | 34.4% | 5.8% | 35.0 |
| 89 | Oxnard, CA | '-0.6% | 23.5% | 5.2% | 34.4 |
| 90 | San Diego, CA | '-1.7% | 50.0% | 9.8% | 34.3 |
| 91 | New York, NY | 1.8% | 61.8% | 5.3% | 32.0 |
| 92 | New Orleans, LA | '-3.2% | 0.0% | 4.9% | 31.3 |
| 93 | Boston, MA | '-0.4% | 47.6% | 5.9% | 29.7 |
| 94 | Los Angeles, CA | '-2.5% | 55.6% | 9.5% | 28.9 |
| 95 | Jackson, MS | '-4.0% | 43.8% | 9.8% | 28.0 |
| 96 | Hartford, CT | '-0.9% | 36.4% | 3.0% | 24.0 |
| 97 | Charleston, SC | 1.1% | 45.0% | 0.7% | 22.9 |
| 98 | San Francisco, CA | '-4.3% | 59.1% | 9.2% | 20.8 |
| 99 | Las Vegas, NV | 0.5% | 71.4% | 2.3% | 17.1 |
| 100 | Honolulu, HI | 0.1% | 119.0% | 1.7% | 0.0 |
Source: LendingTree analysis of U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey and U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis data, measuring changes between 2019 and 2021.
| Rank | Metro | Change in annual GDP, 2019 to 2021 | Number of EINs applied for in 2020/2021 compared to the number granted in 2018/2019 | Category score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Memphis, TN | 3.2% | 108.4% | 100.0 |
| 2 | Lakeland, FL | 8.9% | 71.7% | 88.8 |
| 3 | Augusta, GA | 1.2% | 93.2% | 83.0 |
| 4 | Atlanta, GA | 3.5% | 75.6% | 76.4 |
| 4 | Charlotte, NC | 8.0% | 58.7% | 76.4 |
| 6 | Stockton, CA | 5.6% | 61.8% | 71.9 |
| 7 | San Jose, CA | 18.5% | 12.7% | 71.8 |
| 8 | Columbia, SC | 2.9% | 71.6% | 71.5 |
| 9 | Austin, TX | 13.0% | 31.9% | 70.7 |
| 10 | Cleveland, OH | 2.0% | 69.7% | 67.5 |
| 11 | Jacksonville, FL | 7.5% | 47.2% | 66.3 |
| 12 | Tampa, FL | 7.6% | 45.6% | 65.5 |
| 12 | Charleston, SC | 3.9% | 59.8% | 65.5 |
| 14 | Orlando, FL | 6.3% | 50.4% | 65.3 |
| 15 | Jackson, MS | 2.8% | 63.5% | 65.2 |
| 16 | Cape Coral, FL | 9.1% | 39.5% | 65.0 |
| 17 | Durham, NC | 8.8% | 40.1% | 64.9 |
| 18 | Greensboro, NC | 1.1% | 68.5% | 64.0 |
| 19 | Detroit, MI | 3.3% | 59.6% | 63.7 |
| 20 | Columbus, OH | 6.2% | 48.1% | 63.3 |
| 21 | Toledo, OH | '-0.3% | 72.2% | 62.9 |
| 22 | Riverside, CA | 4.5% | 53.1% | 62.4 |
| 23 | Dayton, OH | 2.5% | 60.2% | 62.0 |
| 24 | Dallas, TX | 5.6% | 47.7% | 61.5 |
| 25 | Virginia Beach, VA | 3.7% | 54.2% | 60.9 |
| 26 | Little Rock, AR | 3.1% | 56.0% | 60.6 |
| 27 | Greenville, SC | 3.5% | 53.8% | 60.1 |
| 28 | Phoenix, AZ | 7.7% | 37.3% | 59.7 |
| 28 | Palm Bay, FL | 7.0% | 40.0% | 59.7 |
| 30 | Provo, UT | 13.2% | 15.7% | 58.9 |
| 31 | Nashville, TN | 9.3% | 29.5% | 58.1 |
| 32 | Indianapolis, IN | 3.2% | 52.3% | 57.8 |
| 33 | Raleigh, NC | 7.2% | 36.4% | 57.4 |
| 34 | Birmingham, AL | 3.4% | 50.7% | 57.2 |
| 34 | North Port, FL | 8.4% | 31.5% | 57.2 |
| 36 | Chicago, IL | 0.6% | 60.5% | 56.7 |
| 37 | Miami, FL | 5.2% | 42.8% | 56.6 |
| 38 | Knoxville, TN | 7.9% | 31.8% | 55.8 |
| 39 | Deltona, FL | 6.6% | 36.5% | 55.7 |
| 40 | Akron, OH | 0.6% | 58.7% | 55.2 |
| 41 | Seattle, WA | 10.1% | 21.7% | 54.4 |
| 42 | Philadelphia, PA | 0.6% | 56.1% | 53.4 |
| 43 | Houston, TX | '-0.5% | 58.8% | 52.5 |
| 44 | Richmond, VA | 2.6% | 46.9% | 52.1 |
| 45 | Sacramento, CA | 3.3% | 43.5% | 51.8 |
| 46 | Milwaukee, WI | 0.3% | 54.6% | 51.5 |
| 47 | Fresno, CA | '-0.1% | 55.4% | 50.8 |
| 48 | Chattanooga, TN | 4.2% | 38.7% | 50.5 |
| 49 | San Antonio, TX | 4.4% | 37.3% | 50.0 |
| 50 | Cincinnati, OH | 3.6% | 40.2% | 49.8 |
| 51 | Louisville, KY | 3.9% | 38.4% | 49.7 |
| 52 | San Francisco, CA | 8.0% | 22.6% | 49.4 |
| 53 | McAllen, TX | 4.7% | 33.1% | 47.9 |
| 54 | Colorado Springs, CO | 6.7% | 24.6% | 46.9 |
| 55 | Grand Rapids, MI | 3.7% | 35.0% | 46.3 |
| 55 | Bakersfield, CA | '-1.0% | 52.5% | 46.3 |
| 55 | Ogden, UT | 7.6% | 20.1% | 46.3 |
| 58 | New Haven, CT | 1.6% | 42.3% | 45.9 |
| 59 | Spokane, WA | 6.3% | 24.4% | 45.7 |
| 60 | Winston-Salem, NC | '-0.3% | 48.7% | 45.4 |
| 61 | Boise, ID | 10.4% | 7.7% | 44.9 |
| 62 | San Diego, CA | 5.2% | 24.5% | 42.6 |
| 63 | St. Louis, MO | 1.1% | 38.8% | 41.9 |
| 64 | Buffalo, NY | 1.7% | 36.3% | 41.7 |
| 65 | Albuquerque, NM | 3.4% | 29.4% | 41.3 |
| 66 | Washington, DC | 2.4% | 32.1% | 40.5 |
| 67 | Baltimore, MD | '-0.2% | 41.3% | 39.9 |
| 67 | El Paso, TX | 2.7% | 30.2% | 39.9 |
| 69 | Denver, CO | 5.7% | 17.4% | 38.8 |
| 69 | Kansas City, MO | 2.4% | 30.0% | 38.8 |
| 71 | Salt Lake City, UT | 8.3% | 6.3% | 37.9 |
| 72 | Los Angeles, CA | 2.1% | 29.0% | 37.3 |
| 73 | Las Vegas, NV | '-1.2% | 39.8% | 36.0 |
| 74 | Baton Rouge, LA | '-8.0% | 65.5% | 35.9 |
| 75 | Des Moines, IA | 7.1% | 8.1% | 35.7 |
| 76 | Rochester, NY | '-0.3% | 35.9% | 35.6 |
| 77 | Scranton, PA | '-1.3% | 39.5% | 35.4 |
| 78 | Oxnard, CA | 1.7% | 28.0% | 35.3 |
| 79 | Minneapolis, MN | 1.6% | 27.8% | 35.0 |
| 79 | New Orleans, LA | '-8.4% | 65.6% | 35.0 |
| 81 | Boston, MA | 4.7% | 14.6% | 34.0 |
| 81 | Worcester, MA | 1.6% | 26.7% | 34.0 |
| 83 | Springfield, MA | '-0.5% | 33.5% | 33.4 |
| 84 | Albany, NY | 3.7% | 16.7% | 32.7 |
| 85 | Tucson, AZ | 3.1% | 18.6% | 32.2 |
| 85 | Syracuse, NY | 1.5% | 24.6% | 32.2 |
| 87 | Allentown, PA | 0.5% | 28.3% | 32.1 |
| 88 | Madison, WI | 3.8% | 14.9% | 31.7 |
| 89 | New York, NY | 0.8% | 25.4% | 31.0 |
| 90 | Omaha, NE | 2.1% | 20.3% | 30.8 |
| 91 | Pittsburgh, PA | '-1.2% | 32.0% | 30.2 |
| 92 | Portland, OR | 3.9% | 11.5% | 29.4 |
| 93 | Wichita, KS | 1.2% | 21.8% | 29.3 |
| 94 | Providence, RI | 2.4% | 13.5% | 26.4 |
| 95 | Oklahoma City, OK | '-3.2% | 28.3% | 21.6 |
| 96 | Hartford, CT | '-2.2% | 23.2% | 20.9 |
| 97 | Harrisburg, PA | '-0.1% | 10.9% | 17.3 |
| 98 | Bridgeport, CT | '-3.9% | 20.7% | 14.1 |
| 99 | Tulsa, OK | '-4.4% | 21.8% | 13.5 |
| 100 | Honolulu, HI | '-5.3% | 7.3% | 0.0 |
Source: LendingTree analysis of U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis and U.S. Census Bureau Business Formation Statistics data.
| Rank | Metro | Final score |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Austin, TX | 83.4 |
| 2 | Provo, UT | 81.5 |
| 3 | Lakeland, FL | 77.1 |
| 4 | Boise, ID | 74.3 |
| 5 | Jacksonville, FL | 67.8 |
| 6 | North Port, FL | 67.0 |
| 7 | Durham, NC | 66.0 |
| 8 | Raleigh, NC | 65.0 |
| 9 | Charlotte, NC | 63.8 |
| 10 | Virginia Beach, VA | 62.7 |
| 11 | Nashville, TN | 61.8 |
| 11 | Stockton, CA | 61.8 |
| 13 | Atlanta, GA | 61.3 |
| 13 | Cape Coral, FL | 61.3 |
| 15 | Indianapolis, IN | 61.0 |
| 16 | Palm Bay, FL | 60.6 |
| 17 | Spokane, WA | 59.7 |
| 18 | Ogden, UT | 59.5 |
| 19 | San Antonio, TX | 59.2 |
| 20 | Orlando, FL | 58.2 |
| 21 | Knoxville, TN | 57.3 |
| 22 | Deltona, FL | 56.8 |
| 23 | Dayton, OH | 56.6 |
| 24 | Columbia, SC | 56.4 |
| 25 | Augusta, GA | 56.2 |
| 26 | Colorado Springs, CO | 55.7 |
| 27 | Columbus, OH | 55.3 |
| 27 | Tampa, FL | 55.3 |
| 29 | Salt Lake City, UT | 55.1 |
| 30 | Richmond, VA | 54.8 |
| 31 | Chattanooga, TN | 53.7 |
| 32 | Dallas, TX | 53.6 |
| 33 | Greenville, SC | 53.2 |
| 33 | Phoenix, AZ | 53.2 |
| 35 | Memphis, TN | 52.4 |
| 36 | Philadelphia, PA | 52.0 |
| 37 | Greensboro, NC | 50.7 |
| 38 | Charleston, SC | 49.6 |
| 38 | El Paso, TX | 49.6 |
| 40 | Madison, WI | 49.2 |
| 41 | Little Rock, AR | 49.1 |
| 42 | Washington, DC | 48.6 |
| 43 | Toledo, OH | 48.3 |
| 44 | Cleveland, OH | 48.1 |
| 45 | Tucson, AZ | 47.0 |
| 46 | Cincinnati, OH | 46.9 |
| 47 | Allentown, PA | 46.7 |
| 47 | Sacramento, CA | 46.7 |
| 49 | Kansas City, MO | 46.1 |
| 50 | McAllen, TX | 45.9 |
| 50 | Seattle, WA | 45.9 |
| 52 | Scranton, PA | 45.7 |
| 53 | Minneapolis, MN | 45.6 |
| 53 | Worcester, MA | 45.6 |
| 55 | Oklahoma City, OK | 45.1 |
| 56 | Buffalo, NY | 44.7 |
| 57 | Houston, TX | 44.5 |
| 58 | Des Moines, IA | 44.4 |
| 59 | Denver, CO | 43.8 |
| 60 | Albany, NY | 43.5 |
| 61 | Detroit, MI | 43.4 |
| 62 | Fresno, CA | 43.3 |
| 62 | San Jose, CA | 43.3 |
| 64 | Omaha, NE | 43.2 |
| 65 | Rochester, NY | 43.1 |
| 66 | Louisville, KY | 42.7 |
| 67 | Winston-Salem, NC | 42.2 |
| 68 | Miami, FL | 41.9 |
| 69 | Riverside, CA | 41.7 |
| 70 | Akron, OH | 41.4 |
| 71 | Albuquerque, NM | 41.1 |
| 72 | Birmingham, AL | 40.9 |
| 73 | Baltimore, MD | 39.8 |
| 74 | Grand Rapids, MI | 39.3 |
| 75 | Portland, OR | 38.8 |
| 76 | Milwaukee, WI | 38.4 |
| 76 | Providence, RI | 38.4 |
| 78 | Baton Rouge, LA | 38.3 |
| 79 | Jackson, MS | 38.1 |
| 80 | Syracuse, NY | 37.6 |
| 81 | Bakersfield, CA | 37.1 |
| 81 | Chicago, IL | 37.1 |
| 83 | Harrisburg, PA | 36.3 |
| 84 | St. Louis, MO | 35.5 |
| 85 | Tulsa, OK | 35.0 |
| 86 | New Haven, CT | 34.6 |
| 87 | Wichita, KS | 33.5 |
| 88 | Boston, MA | 32.9 |
| 89 | Pittsburgh, PA | 32.4 |
| 90 | Springfield, MA | 32.3 |
| 91 | New York, NY | 31.9 |
| 92 | New Orleans, LA | 29.3 |
| 93 | San Francisco, CA | 28.6 |
| 94 | San Diego, CA | 28.4 |
| 95 | Las Vegas, NV | 25.6 |
| 96 | Oxnard, CA | 25.5 |
| 97 | Bridgeport, CT | 25.4 |
| 98 | Los Angeles, CA | 22.1 |
| 99 | Hartford, CT | 21.9 |
| 100 | Honolulu, HI | 14.8 |
Source: LendingTree analysis of various sources.
Looking to start a business in a boomtown? Here’s what experts recommend
Despite the many hardships the pandemic brought, seeing some towns boom may have inspired you to start your own business. For those looking to begin their journey as an entrepreneur, Schulz offers the following advice:
- Do your homework. “Starting a business is a big gamble, so don’t enter into it lightly,” Schulz says. “Take the time to research the competition, write up a business plan, learn about your target customers and take some other key steps before diving in. While there’s never a guarantee that any small business will last, the odds against you get even steeper if you rush in and fly by the seat of your pants.”
- Explore your funding options. Options include taking out a small business loan, but newer companies may have a harder time qualifying for these loans. Some other options include opening a business credit card or researching the small business grant programs for which your business may qualify.
- Take care of yourself. “Entrepreneurship is a grind,” Schulz says. “The hours are long and hard, the work can be exhausting and the outcome is uncertain. As you dive in, make sure not to forsake your mental and physical health. It’s easy to let those things fall to the wayside as you focus instead on the miles-long to-do list you’re facing. However, even 15 to 20 minutes here and there devoted to a brisk walk, meditation, reading or other beneficial things that you enjoy can have a major positive effect on your well-being.”
Methodology
LendingTree analysts ranked and scored the 100 largest metros across eight unique metrics. The eight metrics were grouped into three categories, which were scored according to their equally weighted component metric scores. These three category scores were then averaged (equal weight) for the final score for each metric.
The categories and component metrics are:
People and housing
- Percentage of the 2021 population who moved from another county, state or country in the prior two years. Some metros cover multiple counties and states. (U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey 2020 and 2021 one-year estimates)
- Total population growth between 2019 and 2021. (American Community Survey 2019 and 2021 one-year estimates)
- Change in the number of housing units between 2019 and 2021. (American Community Survey 2019 and 2021 one-year estimates)
Work and earnings
- Change in the number of people active in the workforce between 2019 and 2021. (American Community Survey 2019 and 2021 one-year estimates)
- Change in the unemployment rate between December 2019 and December 2021. (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Local Area Unemployment Statistics)
- Change in median earnings between 2019 and 2021. (American Community Survey 2019 and 2021 one-year estimates)
Business and economy
- Change in the annual GDP between 2019 and 2021. (U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis)
- Number of employer identification numbers (EINs) applied for in 2020 and 2021 compared to the number granted in 2018 and 2019. (Business Formation Statistics – Annual County Data, mapped to metros using U.S. Census delineation files)
Each metric was scored according to its distance from the lowest and highest values, with the highest value earning a score of 100 and the lowest a score of zero. These were then averaged at the category level, and that value was also scored according to its distance from the lowest and highest values, with the highest earning a score of 100 and the lowest a score of zero.
These categorical scores were then averaged for the final scores. The highest possible score was 100 and the lowest possible was zero.
This study’s research was led by Kali McFadden.