Aldgate vs Trott Park
Property investment comparison - Aldgate, SA 5154 vs Trott Park, SA 5158
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Aldgate wins 0, Trott Park 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.
| Metric | Aldgate | Trott Park |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $1.6M | - |
| Median unit price | $535K | - |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 2.46% | 3.62% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | 6.39% | - |
| 1-year house growth | +6.8%estimate | +12.4% |
| 3-year house growth | - | +45.8% |
| Vacancy rate | 1.2% | 0.7% |
| Population | 3,471 | 3,124 |
Aldgate vs Trott Park: what the numbers say
On cash flow, Trott Park leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 3.62%, compared with 2.46% in Aldgate, a gap of 1.16 percentage points.
Over the past year house prices moved +6.8% in Aldgate (an estimate) and +12.4% in Trott Park, so recent momentum favours Trott Park, although both suburbs recorded growth.
Rental vacancy is 0.7% in Trott Park and 1.2% in Aldgate, so landlords in Trott 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 3,124, larger than Trott Park; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Trott Park for rental income, Trott Park for recent price momentum, Trott 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