Acacia Gardens vs Burraga
Property investment comparison - Acacia Gardens, NSW 2763 vs Burraga, NSW 2795
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Acacia Gardens wins 0, Burraga wins 1. The better choice depends on whether you're optimising for cash flow, growth, affordability, or liquidity, the table below highlights the winner on each metric.
| Metric | Acacia Gardens | Burraga |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $1.3M | - |
| Median unit price | - | $445K |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 3.10% | - |
| Gross rental yield (units) | 3.77% | - |
| 1-year house growth | -3.0% | - |
| 3-year house growth | +2.8% | - |
| Vacancy rate | 1.2% | 0.7% |
| Population | 3,668 | 82 |
Acacia Gardens vs Burraga: what the numbers say
Rental vacancy is 0.7% in Burraga and 1.2% in Acacia Gardens, so landlords in Burraga face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.
Acacia Gardens is the bigger suburb, with a population of 3,668 against 82, roughly 45 times the size of Burraga; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Burraga for the tighter rental market. Which matters more depends on whether the investor is buying for cash flow, capital growth or affordability.
Full profile
Acacia Gardens, NSW 2763
Open Acacia Gardens suburb profileRecent sales in Acacia Gardens
Keep exploring
- National investment guide - top suburbs across every metric
- Take the suburb finder quiz - 5 questions to match your goals
- How our investment score works
- Property investment glossary - every term defined
Compare any 2-4 Australian suburbs
Build your own multi-suburb comparison with the full interactive tool.
Open interactive comparison