Cleburne (AL) Investor Pulse Report (2025-Q4)

Real Estate comprehensive investment analysis of investor activity in the Cleburne (AL) single-family residential housing market. Discover ownership trends, transaction patterns, and market insights.

Market Overview

Total SFR Properties in Cleburne (AL)
3,812
Total Investors in Cleburne (AL)
1,077
Investor Owned SFR in Cleburne (AL)
860(22.6%)
Individual Landlords
Landlords
972
SFR Owned
758
Corporate Landlords
Landlords
105
SFR Owned
118
Understanding Property Counts

Distinct Count Methodology: The total 860 represents distinct properties — if 2+ landlords co-own the same property, it's counted only once. This provides the most accurate representation of investor-owned SFR properties.

Why totals don't sum: When broken down by Individual vs Corporate ownership (or by tier), properties with co-ownership across categories are counted once per category. For example, if a property is co-owned by an individual AND a corporate landlord, it appears in both counts. This is why Individual + Corporate totals may exceed the distinct total by 2-4%, and percentages may sum to 100-104%.

Market Visualization

Chart Section2 Coverage
Chart Section3 Ownership Donut
Chart Section4 Distribution

Key Market Insights

Mom-and-Pop Landlords Dominate Cleburne County with 97.3% Ownership, Driving 51.0% of Q4 Home Sales
Investors own 860 SFR properties in Cleburne County (22.6% of the market), with mom-and-pop landlords controlling a staggering 97.3% of that portfolio versus just 0.5% for institutions. In Q4 2025, investors were aggressive net buyers, acquiring 51.0% of all homes sold while paying only 1.3% below homeowner prices, signaling a competitive, small-investor-driven market.
Landlord Owned Current Holdings
Investors own 860 SFR properties in Cleburne County, with individuals holding a dominant 88.1% share.
The vast majority of investor properties (810 of 860, or 94.2%) are owned outright with cash, not financed. Individual landlords (972) vastly outnumber companies (105), a ratio of over 9-to-1, reinforcing the market's small-investor character.
Landlord vs Traditional Homeowners
Landlords paid just 1.3% less than homeowners in Q4, a razor-thin $2,808 average discount.
The pricing advantage for landlords has dramatically narrowed from a substantial 25.3% discount ($58,992) in Q3 2025. This volatility is further highlighted by Q1 2025, where landlords actually paid a 5.0% premium, indicating highly competitive market conditions.
Current Quarter Purchases
Landlords dominated Q4 activity, acquiring 25 properties for a 51.0% share of all market sales.
Mom-and-pop landlords drove this activity, accounting for 96.2% of all investor purchases, while institutional investors acquired only a single property. The market also welcomed 16 new single-property landlords, who alone purchased 14 homes.
Ownership by Tier
Mom-and-pop landlords control a staggering 97.3% of all investor-owned housing in Cleburne County.
Single-property landlords are the bedrock of the market, owning 698 properties, or 79.1% of the total investor portfolio. In stark contrast, institutional investors own just 4 properties, a mere 0.5% share, and are currently net sellers.
Ownership by Tier & Type
Companies become the majority owners at the 11-20 property tier, controlling 87.5% of properties in that segment.
Below this crossover point, individual investors overwhelmingly dominate, holding 89.8% of single-property portfolios and 90.3% of 6-10 property portfolios. No pricing data was available to compare acquisition costs between owner types in this geography.
Geographic Distribution
Investor activity is highly concentrated in Cleburne County, with the 36264 zip code alone holding 497 properties (57.8% of the investor total).
The highest rate of investor ownership is found in the 36272 zip code, where 27.2% of all homes are investor-owned. The 36269 zip code is a notable hotspot, appearing in the top three for both highest property count (82) and highest ownership percentage (25.1%).
Historical Transactions
Landlords in Cleburne County are aggressive net buyers, acquiring 34 properties while selling only 2 in Q4 2025.
This strong trend of accumulation is consistent throughout the year, with a 2025 total of 140 buys versus only 13 sells. In a sharp contrast, institutional investors were net neutral in Q4, with one purchase and one sale.
Current Quarter Transactions
Investors were involved in 44.7% of all Q4 home sales in Cleburne County, executing 34 transactions.
A massive price gap exists between investor tiers: institutional buyers paid $58,930, a 67.3% discount compared to the $180,107 paid by new single-property landlords. The sole institutional purchase came from another landlord, while new landlords sourced only 12.5% of properties from investors.

Want deeper insights tailored to your investment strategy?

TALK TO AN EXPERT

Current Holdings Portfolio

Analysis of landlord property holdings by type, financing method, and owner category

Chart Section5 Holdings
Key Insight
Investors own 860 SFR properties in Cleburne County, with individuals holding a dominant 88.1% share.
Detailed Findings

Investors hold a significant 22.6% share of the single-family residential market in Cleburne County, owning 860 of the 3,812 total SFR properties.

The ownership landscape is overwhelmingly composed of individual investors, who own 758 properties (88.1%), compared to just 118 properties (13.7%) held by companies. This challenges the common narrative of corporate landlord dominance and points to a market driven by local, smaller-scale participants.

A defining characteristic of this market is the preference for all-cash holdings. A staggering 94.2% of investor-owned homes (810 out of 860) are held without financing, indicating that landlords in the area are in a low-leverage, high-equity position.

The entity count further underscores the individual-driven nature of the market, with 972 individual landlords compared to only 105 company entities. This nearly 9-to-1 ratio shows that the rental market is supported by a broad base of individuals, not a concentrated group of corporations.

The portfolio is heavily focused on generating rental income, with 842 of the 860 properties (97.9%) classified as rented. This high rental penetration confirms the primary business objective of investors in Cleburne County.

Acquisition Timing & Pricing

Comparison of acquisition prices between landlords and traditional homeowners

Key Insight
Landlords paid just 1.3% less than homeowners in Q4, a razor-thin $2,808 average discount.
Detailed Findings

In Q4 2025, landlords in Cleburne County acquired properties at an average price of $220,291, securing only a marginal 1.3% discount compared to the $223,099 paid by traditional homeowners. This slim $2,808 price gap suggests investors face intense competition and must pay near-market rates.

The investor pricing advantage has proven highly volatile throughout the year. The minimal Q4 discount is a sharp contraction from the significant 25.3% ($58,992) discount investors achieved in Q3 and the 10.3% ($25,730) discount in Q2.

Adding to the volatility, investors actually paid a 5.0% premium over homeowners in Q1 2025, spending an average of $9,227 more per property. This indicates that in certain periods, securing inventory required outbidding traditional buyers.

Despite the fluctuating quarterly discounts, property values have shown consistent appreciation. The average Q4 2025 landlord acquisition price of $220,291 is 9.9% higher than the average price of $200,400 during the 2020-2023 period.

The shrinking and unpredictable price gap reveals a dynamic market where investors' ability to find discounted properties is diminishing, forcing them to compete more directly with retail homebuyers.

Chart Section6 Prices
Chart Section6 Prices Alt
Chart Section6 Trends
Chart Section6 Yoy Comparison

Current Quarter Purchase Summary

Analysis of Q4 2025 purchase activity by investor tier and type

Chart Section7 Purchases
Chart Section7 Tiers
Key Insight
Landlords dominated Q4 activity, acquiring 25 properties for a 51.0% share of all market sales.
Detailed Findings

Investors were the most powerful buying force in Cleburne County's Q4 2025 market, purchasing 25 of the 49 total SFRs sold for a commanding 51.0% market share.

This surge was fueled almost exclusively by small investors. Mom-and-pop landlords (owning 1-10 properties) were responsible for 25 purchases, representing 96.2% of all investor acquisitions during the quarter.

The market is actively growing from the ground up, evidenced by the 16 new landlord entities that entered the market by purchasing their first investment property. This group was the most active single segment, buying 14 homes (53.8% of the investor total).

In stark contrast, institutional investors (1000+ properties) had a negligible impact on the market, acquiring just one property. This accounts for a mere 3.8% of the landlord purchase volume and underscores their limited presence in the county.

The Q4 purchasing data paints a clear picture of a market defined by the activity of new and existing small-scale landlords, not by large institutional capital.

Ownership by Purchase Tier

Distribution of investor-owned properties across portfolio size tiers

Key Insight
Mom-and-pop landlords control a staggering 97.3% of all investor-owned housing in Cleburne County.
Detailed Findings

The ownership structure of investor-owned real estate in Cleburne County is unequivocally dominated by small-scale operators. Mom-and-pop landlords, defined as those owning 1-10 properties, control a massive 97.3% of the entire investor-held SFR stock.

The single-property landlord tier is the most significant segment by a wide margin, holding 698 properties. This represents 79.1% of all investor-owned homes, highlighting the critical role of first-time and small-scale investors in providing rental housing.

Despite national attention on large investors, institutional firms (1000+ properties) are a minor footnote in the local market. They own only 4 properties, which amounts to just 0.5% of the total investor market share.

The data reveals a significant 'missing middle,' with very few mid-to-large scale investors. Tiers representing portfolios of 11 to 1,000 properties collectively own just 20 properties, or 2.7% of the total, confirming a market structure of many small players.

This highly fragmented ownership distribution signifies that market power is widely dispersed among hundreds of local owners, preventing the concentration of housing in the hands of a few large corporations.

Chart Section8 Distribution
Chart Section8 Prices
Chart Section8 Prices Q4
Chart Section8 Yoy Comparison

Need custom portfolio analysis based on these tier insights?

TALK TO AN EXPERT

Ownership by Tier & Owner Type

Breakdown of individual vs corporate ownership across portfolio tiers

Chart Section9 Ownership
Chart Section9 Growth
Chart Section9 Growth Q4
Chart Section9 Yoy Comparison
Key Insight
Companies become the majority owners at the 11-20 property tier, controlling 87.5% of properties in that segment.
Detailed Findings

While individual investors dominate the overall market, a clear structural shift occurs as portfolios grow. Companies become the majority owners in the 11-20 property tier, holding 14 of the 16 properties (87.5%) in this segment.

In the smaller tiers that constitute the bulk of the market, individual ownership is supreme. Individuals own 636 of the 698 single-property portfolios (89.8%) and 28 of the 31 portfolios in the 6-10 property range (90.3%).

This pattern suggests that as investors professionalize and scale their operations beyond 10 properties, they increasingly adopt corporate structures like LLCs, likely for liability protection and operational efficiency.

Even so, corporate entities are present at the entry level. Companies own 72 properties (10.2%) within the single-property landlord segment, indicating some investors utilize a formal business structure from their very first purchase.

The ownership data by tier reveals a natural market progression: a broad foundation of individual 'mom-and-pop' landlords, with a distinct transition to a corporate model for those who achieve mid-size scale.

Geographic Distribution

Regional breakdown of investor activity and ownership patterns

Key Insight
Investor activity is highly concentrated in Cleburne County, with the 36264 zip code alone holding 497 properties (57.8% of the investor total).
Detailed Findings

Investor ownership in Cleburne County is not evenly spread out but is heavily focused on specific geographic pockets. The 36264 zip code serves as the epicenter of investor activity, containing 497 investor-owned SFRs, which accounts for 57.8% of the county's entire investor portfolio.

While 36264 leads in raw numbers, the 36272 zip code exhibits the highest market saturation, with investors owning 27.2% of its residential housing stock. This is followed closely by 36269 (25.1%) and 36203 (25.0%), indicating areas of intense investor penetration.

The data reveals a key distinction between volume and rate. The areas with the most investor-owned properties are not always the same as those with the highest ownership percentage. This suggests investors employ different strategies, with some targeting larger markets for volume and others focusing on dominating smaller ones.

The 36269 zip code stands out as a primary investment hotspot, ranking second for ownership percentage (25.1%) and third for total property count (82). This signals a market that is both popular in absolute terms and has a high concentration of rental properties.

This geographic clustering strongly suggests that investors are strategically targeting specific communities within Cleburne County, likely based on factors such as strong rental demand, attractive property values, or desirable local amenities.

Chart Section10 Top Regions
Chart Section10 Top Pct

Historical Transactions

Buy/sell transaction trends over time for all landlords and institutional investors

Chart Section11 Buysell
Chart Section11 Buysell Price
Chart Section11 Yoy All Landlords
Chart Section11 Institutional
Chart Section11 Institutional Price
Key Insight
Landlords in Cleburne County are aggressive net buyers, acquiring 34 properties while selling only 2 in Q4 2025.
Detailed Findings

Landlords in Cleburne County are firmly in a portfolio growth phase. In Q4 2025, they demonstrated a strong net buyer position, with 34 purchases against only 2 sales, resulting in a powerful 17-to-1 buy-to-sell ratio.

This aggressive buying posture is not an anomaly. The trend held throughout 2025, with landlords purchasing 140 properties while divesting just 13 over the entire year, showcasing a consistent and confident expansion strategy.

The behavior of institutional investors (1000+ properties) diverges significantly from the broader market. In Q4, they were net neutral, with their single purchase being offset by a single sale. This indicates a static or slightly divesting posture, rather than growth.

Acquisition velocity has remained strong throughout the latter half of the year. The 34 purchases in Q4 followed 26 purchases in Q3 and 36 in Q2, signaling sustained buying momentum heading into the new year.

The market dynamic is clear: growth is being fueled from the ground up by smaller, local investors who are actively accumulating properties, while the largest players remain on the sidelines.

Current Quarter Transactions

Q4 2025 transaction analysis by tier, price, and inter-landlord activity

Key Insight
Investors were involved in 44.7% of all Q4 home sales in Cleburne County, executing 34 transactions.
Detailed Findings

Investors were a pivotal source of market liquidity in Q4 2025, with their 34 purchases accounting for 44.7% of the 76 total SFR transactions in Cleburne County.

A stark difference in purchasing strategy is evident across investor tiers. Institutional buyers paid an average of just $58,930 for their acquisition, while new, single-property landlords paid an average of $180,107. This dramatic 67.3% price difference suggests institutions are targeting deeply distressed or off-market assets not available to typical buyers.

The source of acquisitions also varies significantly by investor size. The single institutional purchase in Q4 was acquired from another landlord, representing 100% reliance on inter-landlord transactions. In contrast, new landlords sourced only 12.5% of their properties (2 of 16) from other investors, relying more heavily on the open market.

In line with ownership and purchase trends, mom-and-pop investors (Tiers 01-04) dominated transaction volume, accounting for 33 of the 34 landlord purchases during the quarter.

The Q4 transaction data reveals a bifurcated investor market: a high volume of small investors paying near-market rates for traditional properties, and a low volume of institutional players executing strategic, low-cost acquisitions from within the existing investor community.

Chart Section12 Transactions
Chart Section12 Prices
Chart Section12 Prices Detail

Ready to leverage this data for your real estate investment decisions?

TALK TO AN EXPERT

Executive Summary

Small Landlords Dominate Cleburne County with 97.3% Ownership While Investors Claim 51.0% of Q4 Sales.
Holdings
Landlords own 860 SFR properties, representing 22.6% of the market in Cleburne County, AL. Individual investors overwhelmingly control the portfolio, holding 758 of these homes (88.1%) compared to 118 (13.7%) owned by companies.
Pricing
In Q4 2025, landlords paid an average of $220,291, a minimal 1.3% discount ($2,808) compared to the $223,099 paid by traditional homeowners, signaling a highly competitive market.
Activity
Investor activity surged in Q4, with landlords purchasing 25 properties and capturing 51.0% of all market sales. This activity was fueled by new entrants, with 16 new single-property landlords joining the market.
Market Share
The investor market is highly fragmented, with mom-and-pop landlords (1-10 properties) controlling a commanding 97.3% of all investor-owned housing. In contrast, institutional investors own just 0.5% of the portfolio.
Ownership Type
Individual investors form the foundation of the market, but companies take majority control (87.5%) in portfolios at the 11-20 property tier, indicating a shift to corporate structures as investors scale.
Transactions
Landlords are aggressive net buyers with a 17-to-1 buy/sell ratio in Q4 (34 buys vs 2 sells). Conversely, institutional investors were net neutral, with one purchase and one sale, suggesting a stable or divesting position.
Market Narrative

The investor landscape in Cleburne County, AL is defined by the prevalence of small, individual landlords. Investors own a total of 860 single-family rentals, which accounts for 22.6% of the county's SFR housing stock. This market is not controlled by large corporations; instead, individual investors own a commanding 88.1% of these properties. The distribution is heavily skewed towards smaller players, with mom-and-pop landlords (1-10 properties) controlling 97.3% of the inventory, while institutional firms hold a mere 0.5%.

In Q4 2025, investor activity was robust, capturing a majority 51.0% share of all home sales. This was driven by smaller landlords who are in a clear accumulation phase, evidenced by a 17-to-1 buy-to-sell ratio for the quarter. In terms of pricing, investors are facing stiff competition, securing only a narrow 1.3% discount compared to traditional homeowners. However, pricing strategies diverge sharply by scale, with institutional buyers in Q4 paying 67.3% less than new single-property landlords, pointing to a focus on distressed or off-market deals.

The key takeaway from the data is that the Cleburne County rental market is a grassroots phenomenon, built and expanded by local individuals rather than distant institutions. While investor purchase activity is strong and growing, the minimal price discounts suggest a competitive balance with the traditional housing market. The divergent behavior between mom-and-pop net buyers and neutral institutional players indicates that future market growth will likely continue to be driven by an expanding base of small-scale investors.

About This Report

Report Methodology

This report analyzes BatchData's Investor Pulse dataset, covering single-family residential (SFR) investor activity across the United States.

Data is extracted from 15 CSV files covering ownership, transactions, and pricing trends, then analyzed using AI-powered insights.

Property Counting Methodology:

Distinct Counts: All headline totals represent distinct properties. If 2+ landlords co-own the same property, it's counted only once. This provides accurate market representation.

Category Breakdowns: When analyzing by tier (01-09), owner type (Individual/Corporate), or occupancy status, properties with co-ownership across categories are counted once per category. This causes breakdowns to sum 2-4% higher than totals, and percentages may sum to 100-104%. This is expected and reflects co-ownership patterns.

TierPropertiesCategory
01-041-10Mom-and-Pop
05-0711-100Mid-Size
08101-1000Large
091000+Institutional
About BatchData

BatchData provides comprehensive real estate data and analytics, offering insights into property ownership, investor activity, and market trends across the United States.

The Investor Pulse dataset tracks single-family residential (SFR) investor behavior at national, state, county, and MSA levels.

For more information, visit batchdata.io or explore our API documentation.

Data Freshness
Report GeneratedMarch 09, 2026 at 11:06 PM
Data PeriodQ4 2025
Geography LevelCounty
GeographyCleburne (AL)
×
Chart Section2 Coverage
Chart Section2 Coverage
×
Chart Section3 Ownership Donut
Chart Section3 Ownership Donut
×
Chart Section3 Ownership Bar
Chart Section3 Ownership Bar
×
Chart Section4 Distribution
Chart Section4 Distribution
×
Chart Section5 Holdings
Chart Section5 Holdings
×
Chart Section6 Prices
Chart Section6 Prices
×
Chart Section6 Prices Alt
Chart Section6 Prices Alt
×
Chart Section6 Yoy Comparison
Chart Section6 Yoy Comparison
×
Chart Section6 Trends
Chart Section6 Trends
×
Chart Section7 Purchases
Chart Section7 Purchases
×
Chart Section7 Tiers
Chart Section7 Tiers
×
Chart Section8 Distribution
Chart Section8 Distribution
×
Chart Section8 Prices
Chart Section8 Prices
×
Chart Section8 Prices Q4
Chart Section8 Prices Q4
×
Chart Section8 Prices 2020
Chart Section8 Prices 2020
×
Chart Section8 Yoy Comparison
Chart Section8 Yoy Comparison
×
Chart Section9 Ownership
Chart Section9 Ownership
×
Chart Section9 Growth
Chart Section9 Growth
×
Chart Section9 Growth Q4
Chart Section9 Growth Q4
×
Chart Section9 Yoy Comparison
Chart Section9 Yoy Comparison
×
Chart Section10 Top Regions
Chart Section10 Top Regions
×
Chart Section10 Top Pct
Chart Section10 Top Pct
×
Chart Section11 Buysell
Chart Section11 Buysell
×
Chart Section11 Buysell Price
Chart Section11 Buysell Price
×
Chart Section11 Yoy All Landlords
Chart Section11 Yoy All Landlords
×
Chart Section11 Institutional
Chart Section11 Institutional
×
Chart Section11 Institutional Price
Chart Section11 Institutional Price
×
Chart Section12 Transactions
Chart Section12 Transactions
×
Chart Section12 Prices
Chart Section12 Prices
×
Chart Section12 Prices Detail
Chart Section12 Prices Detail