Aldgate vs Mitchell Park
Property investment comparison - Aldgate, SA 5154 vs Mitchell Park, SA 5043
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Aldgate wins 2, Mitchell Park wins 2. 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 | Mitchell Park |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $1.6M | - |
| Median unit price | $535K | $630K |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 2.46% | - |
| Gross rental yield (units) | 6.39% | 4.59% |
| 1-year house growth | +6.8%estimate | +9.5% |
| 3-year house growth | - | +50.5% |
| Vacancy rate | 1.2% | 0.4% |
| Population | 3,471 | 5,754 |
Aldgate vs Mitchell Park: what the numbers say
For units, Aldgate sits at a median of $535K against $630K in Mitchell Park, which makes Aldgate the more affordable unit market and Mitchell Park the pricier one.
Over the past year house prices moved +6.8% in Aldgate (an estimate) and +9.5% in Mitchell Park, so recent momentum favours Mitchell Park, although both suburbs recorded growth.
Rental vacancy is 0.4% in Mitchell Park and 1.2% in Aldgate, so landlords in Mitchell Park face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.
Mitchell Park is the bigger suburb, with a population of 5,754 against 3,471, larger than Aldgate; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Mitchell Park for recent price momentum, Mitchell 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