Barranco vs San Miguel: better rental investment? (2026)
n = 2,554 Airbnb listings · 940 sale listings · source: urbania.pe + airroi · as of 2026-09-17 · methodology →
San Miguel wins on both sides of the ledger, and it is not close on price. The long-term net yield is about 5.3% against Barranco's roughly 4.7%, and the Airbnb gross figure runs near 7.0% against about 6.2%. You are also paying roughly $1,717 per m2 in San Miguel against about $2,608 in Barranco - near 34% cheaper, about $885 per m2 less.
That long-term figure is net. It already subtracts property tax, arbitrios, rental income tax and a 3% vacancy allowance. It does not subtract mantenimiento, because in a Lima long-term let the tenant pays that, not you. The Airbnb figure subtracts the platform fee, host-paid utilities and internet, income tax, mantenimiento, property tax and arbitrios - the host carries mantenimiento there, since no guest reimburses it. Both sides assume you self-manage.
Neither figure subtracts furnishing or fit-out, cleaning, turnover or consumables, or management fees. If you hand either operation to someone else, your real return lands below what is printed here, and the Airbnb side is where that bites hardest, because the work is daily rather than annual.
So the pick is San Miguel. Cheaper entry, higher net long-term yield, higher gross on short stays. Barranco is the more expensive mistake: you pay a premium per square metre for a thinner return, and the only argument for it is that the Airbnb number might hold up better in a district with more transient demand - which the figures here do not show.
One caveat. These are district medians, not your unit. A specific building, floor or lease term can move the outcome more than the gap between these two districts, and the data behind them is thin enough that I would not treat the difference as durable. Not investment advice.