Skip to main content

Acacia Gardens vs Tarraganda

Property investment comparison - Acacia Gardens, NSW 2763 vs Tarraganda, NSW 2550

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Acacia Gardens wins 2, Tarraganda wins 3. 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.

MetricAcacia GardensTarraganda
Median house price$1.3M-
Median unit price-$590K
Gross rental yield (houses)3.10%2.99%
Gross rental yield (units)3.77%3.71%
1-year house growth-3.0%+1.9%
3-year house growth+2.8%+11.9%
Vacancy rate1.2%0.5%
Population3,668346

Acacia Gardens vs Tarraganda: what the numbers say

On cash flow, Acacia Gardens leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 3.10%, compared with 2.99% in Tarraganda, a gap of 0.11 percentage points.

Over the past year house prices moved -3.0% in Acacia Gardens and +1.9% in Tarraganda, so recent momentum favours Tarraganda, while Acacia Gardens went backwards.

Looking back three years, Acacia Gardens houses are +2.8% and Tarraganda houses +11.9%, so Tarraganda has compounded faster than Acacia Gardens over the longer window.

Rental vacancy is 0.5% in Tarraganda and 1.2% in Acacia Gardens, so landlords in Tarraganda 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 346, roughly 11 times the size of Tarraganda; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Acacia Gardens for rental income, Tarraganda for recent price momentum, Tarraganda for the tighter rental market. Which matters more depends on whether the investor is buying for cash flow, capital growth or affordability.

Keep exploring

Compare any 2-4 Australian suburbs

Build your own multi-suburb comparison with the full interactive tool.

Open interactive comparison