Skip to main content

Aldgate vs Gillman

Property investment comparison - Aldgate, SA 5154 vs Gillman, SA 5013

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Aldgate wins 4, Gillman 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.

MetricAldgateGillman
Median house price$1.6M-
Median unit price$535K$980K
Gross rental yield (houses)2.46%2.24%
Gross rental yield (units)6.39%2.68%
1-year house growth+6.8%estimate+13.0%
3-year house growth--
Vacancy rate1.2%3.5%
Population3,47176

Aldgate vs Gillman: what the numbers say

For units, Aldgate sits at a median of $535K against $980K in Gillman, which makes Aldgate the more affordable unit market and Gillman the pricier one.

On cash flow, Aldgate leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 2.46%, compared with 2.24% in Gillman, a gap of 0.22 percentage points.

Over the past year house prices moved +6.8% in Aldgate (an estimate) and +13.0% in Gillman, so recent momentum favours Gillman, although both suburbs recorded growth.

Rental vacancy is 1.2% in Aldgate and 3.5% in Gillman, so landlords in Aldgate 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 76, roughly 46 times the size of Gillman; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Aldgate for rental income, Gillman for recent price momentum, Aldgate 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