The Burrow
Mar 11, 2026
Home burglary rates can cause concern among homeowners and renters. Not only do burglary rates in certain regions threaten the welfare of those living there, but if affected it can also have significant financial impact, including losses from stolen or damaged belongings.
The home and contents insurance experts at Compare the Market have analysed data across regions in the US and Australia to find out who experiences the most break-ins, and how significant the cost impact could be.
From the frequency of burglaries (otherwise referred to as the burglary rate) to the percentage of household monthly income required to replace the most commonly stolen items, we have collated the factors that create the Home Burglary Cost Impact Index to find which states and territories across Australia and the US could be most impacted.
By researching local crime rates over a 12-month period, median household incomes, and the cost of goods commonly stolen (such as laptops, smartphones, watches, power tools and jewellery), we created the Home Burglary Cost Impact Index to score the financial effect of home burglary rates on regions across the US and Australia.
| Rank | State | Burglaries per 100k households | Median monthly household income (USD) | Monthly household income required to replace most stolen items | Total Score (Max 100) |
| 1 | New Mexico | 2,008.6 | $5,189 | 55.00% | 87.02 |
| 2 | Oklahoma | 1,983.2 | $5,178 | 55.10% | 86.49 |
| 3 | Arkansas | 1,469.8 | $4,892 | 58.40% | 77.18 |
| 4 | Louisiana | 1,307.0 | $4,852 | 58.80% | 73.36 |
| 5 | Mississippi | 831.9 | $4,517 | 63.20% | 66.93 |
New Mexico saw the highest home burglary rate in the US at 2,008.6 per 100k households, over a 12 month period, with 55.0% of monthly household income require to replace the most common stolen items.
Oklahoma was ranked second and saw a similar monthly income required (55.1%), but with a slightly lower volume of burglaries of 1,983.2 per 100k of households.
Ranked third in our index was Arkansas, with a lower burglary rate of 1,469.8 per 100k households but a higher required monthly income spend on replacing stolen items at 58.4%, highlighting this state could feel the biggest impact in the financial aftermath.
While Mississippi ranked fifth in the US, the state saw a comparatively low burglary rate (831.9 per 100k households), but it saw the most significant percentage (63.2%) of monthly income required to replace stolen items.
Of the top-ranking states, New Mexico and Mississippi have the most mobile homes, which could be a contributor to the home burglary rates, as these types of homes are often less secure than others.
| Rank | State/Territory | Home burglary rate per 100k houses | Median monthly household income (AUD) | Monthly household income required to replace most stolen items | Total Score (Max 100) |
| 1 | Tasmania | 890.5 | $5,885 | 69.90% | 66.79 |
| 2 | Northern Territory | 1,836.50 | $8,931 | 46.00% | 60.13 |
| 3 | South Australia | 779.6 | $6,305 | 65.20% | 55.1 |
| 4 | Queensland | 1,157.10 | $7,258 | 56.60% | 54.02 |
| 5 | Western Australia | 1,055.30 | $7,865 | 52.30% | 43.14 |
Tasmania ranked the highest in our index for burglary cost impact, with the highest percentage of monthly income required to replace stolen goods (69.9%) and a burglary rate of 890.5 per 100k households. South Australia ranked third and reported a similar result with a 779.6 per 100k households burglary rate and 65.2% of monthly household income required to replace stolen items.
However, the Northern Territory had an exceedingly high burglary rate of 1,836.5 per 100k households, but a lower percentage of the monthly household income required to replace stolen items at 46.0%, and was ranked second overall in our Home Burglary Cost Impact Index.
The financial impact of burglaries is entirely dependent on what goods are stolen but according to our research some states and territories seem to have a lower risk and therefore less of a financial impact.
In the US, the lowest burglary rates were seen in New Hampshire (with 229.5 per 100k households) as well as Maine (363.3), both of which had a low percentage of 35-34% monthly income required to replace stolen items. New Jersey followed with a burglary rate of 626.3 per 100k households and a low 34.3% of household income required to replace stolen goods. However, the lowest percentages of monthly income required to replace the most stolen items in the US was in the District of Columbia (31.7%) and Massachusetts (34.3%).
Australia’s lowest burglary rates were reported in the Australian Capital Territory with 412.4 per 100k households, while the territory also had the lowest percentages of monthly household income required to replace stolen items across the country with 40%. Followed by New South Wales with a burglary rate of 593.1 per 100k households, combined with 51.9% of monthly household income required to replace the most stolen items. Victoria was placed next with a burglary rate of 940.1 per 100k households and 53.9% of monthly income required to replace stolen items.
Adrian Taylor, Executive General Manager of General Insurance, comments: “Burglaries can be a concern across Australia, although some regions may be more at risk than others. Taking proactive steps such as installing secure locks, alarm systems, security cameras and storing valuables safely can help reduce the risk and offer extra peace of mind. Having home and contents insurance can also be really important, because it can give you some financial reassurance if anything was to happen to your property. And if your home is damaged or burgled, an insurance policy can help your household recover faster and with less stress”
This dataset ranks US states and Australian states and territories based on the regions’ burglary rate and the financial impact of replacing the most commonly stolen items would have, by using two key factors. Each factor’s data was collected and normalised to a score between 0 and 1. If data was missing, a score of 0 was given. These scores were then combined to give each state a total score out of 100, and states were ranked from highest to lowest.
The factors used were as follows:
The replacement items used were as follows:
Sources:
All factors were indexed so that a higher score indicates greater financial impact.
All data is correct as of 03/02/26. The ranking data shown is a compilation of multiple data sources and may not be representative of real life. All data is accurate regarding the sources provided.
The electronics used to calculate replacement prices were chosen with fixed specifications to reduce variability. Three datapoints were collected across three different retail stores to calculate the average cost. As the other items inherently have more price variability, these were averaged by using 10 datapoints across three retail stores, using the option ‘Most Popular’/’Best Selling’ where possible. All prices represent retail replacement costs, ignoring temporary discounts or sales, and any differences between US & AUS items reflect local market availability.