Skip to main content

Allenby Gardens vs Trott Park

Property investment comparison - Allenby Gardens, SA 5009 vs Trott Park, SA 5158

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Allenby Gardens wins 1, 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.

MetricAllenby GardensTrott Park
Median house price$1.2M-
Median unit price$920K-
Gross rental yield (houses)3.28%3.62%
Gross rental yield (units)--
1-year house growth+8.0%+12.4%
3-year house growth+33.1%+45.8%
Vacancy rate0.3%0.7%
Population2,0453,124

Allenby Gardens 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 3.28% in Allenby Gardens, a gap of 0.34 percentage points.

Over the past year house prices moved +8.0% in Allenby Gardens and +12.4% in Trott Park, so recent momentum favours Trott Park, although both suburbs recorded growth.

Looking back three years, Allenby Gardens houses are +33.1% and Trott Park houses +45.8%, so Trott Park has compounded faster than Allenby Gardens over the longer window.

Rental vacancy is 0.3% in Allenby Gardens and 0.7% in Trott Park, so landlords in Allenby Gardens face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.

Trott Park is the bigger suburb, with a population of 3,124 against 2,045, larger than Allenby Gardens; 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, Allenby Gardens 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