Acacia Gardens vs Mount Irvine
Property investment comparison - Acacia Gardens, NSW 2763 vs Mount Irvine, NSW 2786
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Acacia Gardens wins 1, Mount Irvine wins 0. 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 | Mount Irvine |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $1.3M | - |
| Median unit price | - | - |
| 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% | 8.3% |
| Population | 3,668 | 22 |
Acacia Gardens vs Mount Irvine: what the numbers say
Rental vacancy is 1.2% in Acacia Gardens and 8.3% in Mount Irvine, so landlords in Acacia Gardens 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 22, roughly 167 times the size of Mount Irvine; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Acacia Gardens 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