Skip to main content

Andrews Farm vs Bellevue Heights

Property investment comparison - Andrews Farm, SA 5114 vs Bellevue Heights, SA 5050

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Andrews Farm wins 4, Bellevue Heights 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.

MetricAndrews FarmBellevue Heights
Median house price-$1.2M
Median unit price$565K-
Gross rental yield (houses)4.20%3.00%
Gross rental yield (units)4.05%2.50%
1-year house growth+13.4%+15.9%
3-year house growth+57.8%+35.0%
Vacancy rate1.3%1.6%
Population8,6992,712

Andrews Farm vs Bellevue Heights: what the numbers say

On cash flow, Andrews Farm leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 4.20%, compared with 3.00% in Bellevue Heights, a gap of 1.20 percentage points.

Over the past year house prices moved +13.4% in Andrews Farm and +15.9% in Bellevue Heights, so recent momentum favours Bellevue Heights, although both suburbs recorded growth.

Looking back three years, Andrews Farm houses are +57.8% and Bellevue Heights houses +35.0%, so Andrews Farm has compounded faster than Bellevue Heights over the longer window.

Rental vacancy is 1.3% in Andrews Farm and 1.6% in Bellevue Heights, so landlords in Andrews Farm face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.

Andrews Farm is the bigger suburb, with a population of 8,699 against 2,712, roughly 3.2 times the size of Bellevue Heights; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Andrews Farm for rental income, Bellevue Heights for recent price momentum, Andrews Farm 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