Skip to main content

Aldgate vs Kidman Park

Property investment comparison - Aldgate, SA 5154 vs Kidman Park, SA 5025

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Aldgate wins 1, Kidman Park wins 4. 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.

MetricAldgateKidman Park
Median house price$1.6M-
Median unit price$535K$530K
Gross rental yield (houses)2.46%2.98%
Gross rental yield (units)6.39%6.26%
1-year house growth+6.8%estimate+13.8%
3-year house growth-+37.7%
Vacancy rate1.2%0.6%
Population3,4713,874

Aldgate vs Kidman Park: what the numbers say

For units, Aldgate sits at a median of $535K against $530K in Kidman Park, which makes Kidman Park the more affordable unit market and Aldgate the pricier one.

On cash flow, Kidman Park leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 2.98%, compared with 2.46% in Aldgate, a gap of 0.52 percentage points.

Over the past year house prices moved +6.8% in Aldgate (an estimate) and +13.8% in Kidman Park, so recent momentum favours Kidman Park, although both suburbs recorded growth.

Rental vacancy is 0.6% in Kidman Park and 1.2% in Aldgate, so landlords in Kidman Park face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.

Kidman Park is the bigger suburb, with a population of 3,874 against 3,471, larger than Aldgate; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Kidman Park for rental income, Kidman Park for recent price momentum, Kidman 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

Compare any 2-4 Australian suburbs

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

Open interactive comparison