Ashbourne vs Athelstone
Property investment comparison - Ashbourne, SA 5157 vs Athelstone, SA 5076
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Ashbourne wins 0, Athelstone 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 | Ashbourne | Athelstone |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | - | $1.1M |
| Median unit price | $885K | $630K |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | - | 3.30% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | 2.02% | - |
| 1-year house growth | - | +14.1% |
| 3-year house growth | - | +41.1% |
| Vacancy rate | 5.4% | 0.5% |
| Population | 308 | 9,601 |
Ashbourne vs Athelstone: what the numbers say
For units, Ashbourne sits at a median of $885K against $630K in Athelstone, which makes Athelstone the more affordable unit market and Ashbourne the pricier one.
Rental vacancy is 0.5% in Athelstone and 5.4% in Ashbourne, so landlords in Athelstone face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.
Athelstone is the bigger suburb, with a population of 9,601 against 308, roughly 31 times the size of Ashbourne; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Athelstone 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