Juneau (WI) Investor Pulse Report (2025-Q4)

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

Market Overview

Total SFR Properties in Juneau (WI)
12,717
Total Investors in Juneau (WI)
4,997
Investor Owned SFR in Juneau (WI)
4,067(32.0%)
Individual Landlords
Landlords
4,262
SFR Owned
3,360
Corporate Landlords
Landlords
735
SFR Owned
746
Understanding Property Counts

Distinct Count Methodology: The total 4,067 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 Juneau County, Paying a 39.4% Premium Amidst Fierce Competition
Investors own 32.0% of single-family homes in Juneau County, a market controlled almost entirely by mom-and-pop landlords (99.6% of holdings). In a striking reversal of national trends, Q4 2025 saw landlords pay a 39.4% premium over traditional homeowners, signaling intense competition fueled by an influx of new, single-property investors. The entire investor-owned portfolio is held in cash, and landlords remain aggressive net buyers, accumulating properties at a rapid pace.
Landlord Owned Current Holdings
Investors own 4,067 SFR properties in Juneau County, with 100% of holdings owned outright in cash.
Individual landlords control a commanding 82.6% (3,360 properties) of the investor market. Out of 4,067 investor-owned homes, 4,024 are confirmed rentals, and remarkably, zero properties are financed.
Landlord vs Traditional Homeowners
Landlords paid a shocking 39.4% premium over homeowners in Q4, averaging $329,656 per property.
This marks a dramatic reversal from a 28.9% discount in Q1 2025, when landlords paid $80,128 less than homeowners. The price gap flipped from an investor advantage to a significant premium over the course of the year.
Current Quarter Purchases
Landlords acquired 34.5% of all homes sold in Q4, with 100% of purchases made by new, single-property investors.
All 10 landlord purchases in Q4 were made by 16 different entities entering the market for the first time. Institutional investors (1000+ properties) made zero acquisitions, showing no activity in the county.
Ownership by Tier
Mom-and-pop landlords (1-10 properties) control a near-total 99.6% of all investor-owned housing in Juneau County.
Single-property landlords alone own 84.2% of the market (3,519 properties). In contrast, institutional investors with over 1,000 properties own just two homes, making up a negligible 0.0% share.
Ownership by Tier & Type
Individual investors are the majority owners in every portfolio tier, with no crossover point to company dominance.
Even in the 6-10 property tier, individuals own 55.4% of homes (41 properties), defying the typical trend of company ownership in larger portfolios. In the dominant single-property tier, individuals own 83.8% of the properties.
Geographic Distribution
Investor activity is hyper-concentrated, with two zip codes (54646 and 53950) accounting for 57.9% of all investor properties.
The zip code 54641 has the highest investor penetration at a full 100.0%. Meanwhile, 54646 has the highest volume with 1,198 investor-owned homes, representing a 41.6% ownership rate.
Historical Transactions
Landlords are aggressive net buyers, acquiring 112 properties while selling only 1 in 2025.
This strong accumulation trend was also present in 2024, when landlords purchased 301 properties and sold just 23. This demonstrates sustained and high confidence in the Juneau County market among investors.
Current Quarter Transactions
Investors were involved in 36.4% of Q4 transactions, all of which were purchases by new, first-time landlords.
These new single-property investors paid an average price of $329,656. Notably, 0% of their purchases were from other landlords, meaning they acquired all properties from the traditional homeowner market.

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 4,067 SFR properties in Juneau County, with 100% of holdings owned outright in cash.
Detailed Findings

Investor ownership in Juneau County accounts for 4,067 single-family residential properties, representing a significant 32.0% of the total market of 12,717 SFRs.

The market is overwhelmingly characterized by individual ownership, with these smaller investors holding 3,360 properties, or 82.6% of the total investor portfolio. Companies own the remaining 746 properties (18.3%).

A defining feature of this market is its complete lack of leverage; 100% of the 4,067 investor-owned properties are held in cash, with zero properties carrying financing. This indicates a financially secure investor base that is not reliant on debt for acquisitions.

The portfolio is heavily utilized for rental income, with 4,024 properties classified as rented. This high rental penetration underscores the business focus of property ownership in the region.

The entity landscape mirrors the property ownership split, with 4,262 individual landlords comprising the vast majority of the 4,997 total investors, compared to just 735 company landlords.

Acquisition Timing & Pricing

Comparison of acquisition prices between landlords and traditional homeowners

Key Insight
Landlords paid a shocking 39.4% premium over homeowners in Q4, averaging $329,656 per property.
Detailed Findings

In a striking departure from typical market behavior, landlords in Juneau County paid a significant premium for properties in the latter half of 2025. In Q4, the average landlord acquisition price was $329,656, a full 39.4% ($93,188) higher than the traditional homeowner price of $236,468.

This trend of overpayment began in Q3, where landlords paid a 14.2% premium ($59,790). This is a stark reversal from the first half of the year, which saw landlords securing substantial discounts.

The year began with landlords enjoying a deep 28.9% discount in Q1, paying on average $80,128 less than homeowners. This was followed by an 18.8% discount ($53,702) in Q2.

The dramatic shift from a nearly 29% discount to a nearly 40% premium within just three quarters suggests a rapid escalation in competition for limited housing stock, driving prices up exclusively in the investor segment.

This pricing anomaly indicates that investors are targeting properties with specific features or locations that command higher prices, or that new, less-experienced investors are bidding aggressively to enter the market.

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 acquired 34.5% of all homes sold in Q4, with 100% of purchases made by new, single-property investors.
Detailed Findings

Investor activity accounted for 34.5% of the market in Q4 2025, with landlords purchasing 10 of the 29 total SFRs sold in Juneau County.

The entirety of this purchasing activity was driven by the smallest investor segment. Mom-and-pop landlords (Tiers 01-04) were responsible for 100% of investor acquisitions this quarter.

Diving deeper, all 10 properties were acquired by single-property landlords (Tier 01), signaling that market growth is fueled exclusively by new entrants rather than existing landlords expanding their portfolios.

These 10 properties were acquired by 16 distinct entities, indicating co-ownership on several of the properties purchased by first-time investors.

In stark contrast, large-scale institutional investors (Tier 09) had no purchasing activity, acquiring zero properties and holding 0.0% of the Q4 purchase share.

Ownership by Purchase Tier

Distribution of investor-owned properties across portfolio size tiers

Key Insight
Mom-and-pop landlords (1-10 properties) control a near-total 99.6% of all investor-owned housing in Juneau County.
Detailed Findings

The investor landscape in Juneau County is the epitome of a mom-and-pop market, with small landlords (1-10 properties) controlling a staggering 99.6% of all investor-owned SFRs.

The concentration at the smallest scale is immense: single-property landlords (Tier 01) alone account for 3,519 properties, representing 84.2% of the entire investor portfolio.

Ownership diminishes rapidly with scale. Two-property landlords hold 6.3% (265 properties), while those owning 3-5 properties hold 7.3% (305 properties).

The mid-size and large-scale investor tiers have a minimal footprint. The four tiers spanning 11 to 1,000 properties combined own just 13 homes in total.

Institutional investors (Tier 09, 1000+ properties) have virtually no presence in the county, owning just 2 properties. This represents 0.0% of the market, confirming that corporate ownership is not a factor in this region.

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
Individual investors are the majority owners in every portfolio tier, with no crossover point to company dominance.
Detailed Findings

In Juneau County, individual investors maintain majority ownership across every single portfolio size, a pattern that differs significantly from most markets where companies typically dominate larger tiers.

In the largest active tier with significant property counts (6-10 properties), individuals still own the majority with 41 properties (55.4%), compared to 33 properties (44.6%) owned by companies.

This individual dominance is even more pronounced in smaller tiers. Among landlords with 3-5 properties, individuals own 80.0% (244 properties). For two-property landlords, the individual share is 77.2% (206 properties).

The vast single-property tier, which represents the bulk of the market, is overwhelmingly controlled by individuals, who own 2,977 of the properties (83.8%) compared to 576 owned by companies.

The data clearly shows that as portfolios grow in Juneau County, they do not transition to company ownership, reinforcing the market's deep-rooted, small-scale, and individual-centric nature.

Geographic Distribution

Regional breakdown of investor activity and ownership patterns

Key Insight
Investor activity is hyper-concentrated, with two zip codes (54646 and 53950) accounting for 57.9% of all investor properties.
Detailed Findings

Investor ownership in Juneau County is not evenly distributed but is instead highly concentrated in specific geographic pockets. The top two zip codes, 54646 and 53950, contain a combined 2,355 investor-owned properties, representing 57.9% of the county's entire investor portfolio.

The zip code 54646 is the largest hub for investor activity by volume, with 1,198 properties owned by investors, which translates to a high ownership rate of 41.6%.

The highest rate of investor penetration occurs in 54641, where investors own 100.0% of the SFR properties, indicating a market completely composed of rental or non-owner-occupied homes.

Other areas with significant investor saturation include 54457 (45.8% investor-owned), 53950 (38.9% investor-owned), and 53962 (35.0% investor-owned).

This geographic concentration suggests that investors are targeting specific communities, likely driven by factors such as proximity to amenities, tourism, or specific housing stock characteristics.

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 are aggressive net buyers, acquiring 112 properties while selling only 1 in 2025.
Detailed Findings

Transaction data reveals a strong and consistent pattern of accumulation among landlords in Juneau County. In 2025, investors were overwhelmingly net buyers, purchasing 112 properties while only selling one.

This behavior is not a recent development. The trend was even more pronounced in 2024, a year in which landlords acquired 301 SFR properties and divested only 23, making them significant net buyers.

The buy-to-sell ratio is exceptionally high, indicating that investors who acquire property in this market tend to hold it for the long term rather than engaging in short-term flipping.

Given the near-zero institutional presence, this aggressive accumulation is driven entirely by individual and small-scale company investors who are deepening their footprint in the county.

This sustained net buying activity, coupled with the 100% cash ownership, signals a very bullish outlook on the local real estate market from a highly capitalized investor base.

Current Quarter Transactions

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

Key Insight
Investors were involved in 36.4% of Q4 transactions, all of which were purchases by new, first-time landlords.
Detailed Findings

In Q4 2025, landlords participated in 16 of the 44 total SFR transactions in Juneau County, capturing a 36.4% share of market activity.

All 16 of these transactions were driven by the smallest investor segment—the single-property (Tier 01) landlord. This highlights that market activity is exclusively fueled by new entrants.

The average purchase price for these new investors was $329,656, the same price that created the nearly 40% premium over homeowner prices, suggesting new entrants are driving the price escalation.

Crucially, 0% of these acquisitions were sourced from other landlords. This lack of inter-landlord trading indicates that new investors are competing directly with homeowners for available inventory, rather than buying from a pool of existing rental properties.

There was no transaction activity from institutional investors, reaffirming their passive role in this market. The Q4 transaction data paints a picture of new, small-scale capital flowing into the market and competing intensely for homeowner-occupied properties.

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 Investors Dominate Juneau County, Paying a 39.4% Premium to Enter a 100% Cash-Owned Market
Holdings
In Juneau County, Wisconsin, landlords own 4,067 single-family residential properties, representing 32.0% of the market. The portfolio is overwhelmingly held by individual investors, who control 3,360 properties (82.6%), while companies own the remaining 746 (18.3%).
Pricing
In a stark market reversal, Q4 2025 saw landlords pay an average of $329,656, a 39.4% premium over the traditional homeowner price of $236,468. This ended a trend of investor discounts seen earlier in the year.
Activity
Landlords purchased 34.5% of homes sold in Q4 (10 properties), with 100% of this activity coming from 16 new, single-property landlords entering the market. No institutional investors made acquisitions.
Market Share
The market is fundamentally controlled by small investors, as mom-and-pop landlords (1-10 properties) own a near-total 99.6% of all investor housing. Institutional investors (1000+) have virtually no presence, with a 0.0% market share.
Ownership Type
Individual investors are the majority property owners in every portfolio tier in Juneau County. Unlike in typical markets, there is no crossover point where companies become the dominant owner type as portfolio sizes increase.
Transactions
Landlords are aggressive net buyers, acquiring 112 properties while selling only one in 2025. This follows a similar pattern in 2024 (301 buys vs. 23 sells), signaling a strong, ongoing accumulation of assets.
Market Narrative

The single-family rental market in Juneau County, Wisconsin, is uniquely defined by the absolute dominance of small, individual investors and financial dynamics that defy national trends. Landlords own a substantial 4,067 properties, or 32.0% of the county's total SFR stock. This market is overwhelmingly controlled by mom-and-pop landlords (1-10 properties), who hold a 99.6% share, while institutional investors have a negligible 0.0% footprint. Further distinguishing the market, the entire investor portfolio is owned 100% in cash, indicating a highly capitalized and unleveraged investor base composed primarily of individuals, who own 82.6% of the properties.

Investor behavior in Q4 2025 revealed intense market competition, with landlords acquiring 34.5% of all homes sold. In a striking reversal of the typical investor discount, these buyers paid a 39.4% premium over traditional homeowners, driven entirely by an influx of new, single-property investors. This surge of new entrants, coupled with landlords being aggressive net buyers (112 acquisitions vs. 1 sale in 2025), points to a market with high demand and limited supply. All Q4 investor purchases came from the homeowner market, with zero transactions between existing landlords, further highlighting the pressure on available housing stock.

The key takeaway from Juneau County is a portrait of a hyper-local, unleveraged market where small-scale capital is king. The absence of institutional players and leveraged financing creates a stable but highly competitive environment. The significant price premiums paid by new investors signal a high barrier to entry and powerful confidence in the region's long-term value, likely driven by specific local factors like tourism or recreation. This market serves as a clear example of how local dynamics can create a real estate landscape fundamentally different from the national narrative of corporate landlord expansion.

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 17, 2026 at 10:30 PM
Data PeriodQ4 2025
Geography LevelCounty
GeographyJuneau (WI)
×
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