San Francisco - SFO vs SAN in Jan?

I'm planning a trip to visit CA this winter break. Is SFO better than SAN in January? LAX can be an option but I've heard SFO is visitor-friendlier. Any suggestion is appreciated :)

I suppose before we can provide meaningful advice, we would need to know what is important to you; i.e., what you like and dislike, what you want to do, your budget, and so on.

I suppose before we can provide meaningful advice, we would need to know what is important to you; i.e., what you like and dislike, what you want to do, your budget, and so on.

Additionally, do you want a "city" type trip (SF), or one where you will definitely need a car to see sights (SD)? Much more likely to have rain in SF than SD, but the clear winter days @ SF are just unbeatable for views. If it does rain in SD it is more likely to put a damper on your activities (more outdoor-driven) than if it rains in SF.

I recommend SAN over SFO for the weather. In many areas around SAN you'll find sun and weather warm enough to wear a short sleeved shirt even in winter. In SF you'll need to plan on it being 55 and drizzly. Of course, I'm presuming that you're looking for good weather during your winter break. That's not everyone's priority, which is why others up-thread are asking for information about yours in order to give the best recommendations.

I'm college student on small budget. I don't mind the rain that much as long as there are indoor stuff to do.

It looks like I need a car rental for San Diego. Do I need one in SFO? that can be a deal breaker since it's gonna be expensive :(

You not only don't need a car rental in SF, it is really a negative to have one as parking is either scarce or expensive in many parts of town. SF is probably the only city in all of California that has decent public transportation, and you can buy a pass good for a few days (1/3/7 days for $14/21/27, also good on cable cars).

I'm biased, but I think SF is a lot more interesting. In January you could get a great hotel deal via Priceline and as noted above, you don't need a car. Lots to do in SF even when it's raining.

Agree, you have to say better for WHAT. Which has better, as in warmer/dryer weather? That's easy (and something you could have found out easily on your own, so I assume you mean something else). Are you going to visit one city now and the other later, such as in the summer? Why those two cities (e.g., not L.A.)? People don't generally go to SF for the weather. Even the summer can be cold, with fog (not sure if he actually said it, but I think Mark Twain is quoted as saying one of the coldest winters her ever spent was a summer in San Francisco). If you go to SF, would you stick to the city or explore other areas? How long would you be there? If you're going to be there New Years Eve, you need to make hotel reservations early, especially for central tourist areas.

If you go to SF, a car is a liability (except for any time you want to go to outlying areas). In SD, it's not an absolute necessity (public transportation isn't bad, but the city is more spread out than is SF), and there are drawbacks (e.g., high parking fees at downtown/Gaslamp Quarter hotels), but in general you'll probalby want one.

Assuming flights are of approximately equal cost for you, you might check hotel prices, which can, especially in SF, vary widely depending on what conventions are in town. In February of last year we couldn't find a hotel at a decent price due to a convention filling up many hotels. You don't want to end up staying near SFO due to a lack of hotel space. Even Oakland may not have many options.

If you're looking to minimize costs, try http://sfhostels.com/. The Fisherman's Wharf location is not actually at Fisherman's Wharf...but the location is better. And if you don't know anyone in town, you'll soon have people to join with to see sights and go out.

I've lived in both SF and SD and love them both. SD is great for a beach-centric vacation, otherwise SF is far preferrable IMHO.