Skip to main content

Acacia Gardens vs Tarrawanna

Property investment comparison - Acacia Gardens, NSW 2763 vs Tarrawanna, NSW 2518

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Acacia Gardens wins 1, Tarrawanna 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 GardensTarrawanna
Median house price$1.3M-
Median unit price-$830K
Gross rental yield (houses)3.10%3.20%
Gross rental yield (units)3.77%4.48%
1-year house growth-3.0%+0.3%estimate
3-year house growth+2.8%-
Vacancy rate1.2%1.6%
Population3,6682,184

Acacia Gardens vs Tarrawanna: what the numbers say

On cash flow, Tarrawanna leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 3.20%, compared with 3.10% in Acacia Gardens, a gap of 0.10 percentage points.

Over the past year house prices moved -3.0% in Acacia Gardens and +0.3% in Tarrawanna (an estimate), so recent momentum favours Tarrawanna, while Acacia Gardens went backwards.

Rental vacancy is 1.2% in Acacia Gardens and 1.6% in Tarrawanna, 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 2,184, larger than Tarrawanna; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Tarrawanna for rental income, Tarrawanna for recent price momentum, Acacia Gardens 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