Arcadia Vale vs Nana Glen
Property investment comparison - Arcadia Vale, NSW 2283 vs Nana Glen, NSW 2450
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Arcadia Vale wins 1, Nana Glen 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 | Arcadia Vale | Nana Glen |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $900K | $900K |
| Median unit price | $595K | $565K |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | - | 3.67% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | 5.21% | 4.41% |
| 1-year house growth | +13.2% | +13.9%estimate |
| 3-year house growth | +17.0% | - |
| Vacancy rate | 1.7% | 1.6% |
| Population | 1,431 | 1,132 |
Arcadia Vale vs Nana Glen: what the numbers say
Houses cost about the same in both suburbs: the median house price is $900K in Arcadia Vale and $900K in Nana Glen.
For units, Arcadia Vale sits at a median of $595K against $565K in Nana Glen, which makes Nana Glen the more affordable unit market and Arcadia Vale the pricier one.
Over the past year house prices moved +13.2% in Arcadia Vale and +13.9% in Nana Glen (an estimate), so recent momentum favours Nana Glen, although both suburbs recorded growth.
Rental vacancy is the same in both, at 1.7%.
Arcadia Vale is the bigger suburb, with a population of 1,431 against 1,132, larger than Nana Glen; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Nana Glen for recent price momentum. 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