Aldgate vs Bedford Park
Property investment comparison - Aldgate, SA 5154 vs Bedford Park, SA 5042
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Aldgate wins 1, Bedford Park 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 | Aldgate | Bedford Park |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $1.6M | - |
| Median unit price | $535K | - |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 2.46% | - |
| Gross rental yield (units) | 6.39% | 6.04% |
| 1-year house growth | +6.8%estimate | - |
| 3-year house growth | - | - |
| Vacancy rate | 1.2% | 0.7% |
| Population | 3,471 | 1,882 |
Aldgate vs Bedford Park: what the numbers say
Rental vacancy is 0.7% in Bedford Park and 1.2% in Aldgate, so landlords in Bedford Park face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.
Aldgate is the bigger suburb, with a population of 3,471 against 1,882, larger than Bedford Park; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Bedford Park for the tighter rental market. Which matters more depends on whether the investor is buying for cash flow, capital growth or affordability.
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