Skip to main content

Ashcroft vs Kearns

Property investment comparison - Ashcroft, NSW 2168 vs Kearns, NSW 2558

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Ashcroft wins 5, Kearns 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.

MetricAshcroftKearns
Median house price$1.1M$1.1M
Median unit price$795K-
Gross rental yield (houses)2.88%3.29%
Gross rental yield (units)4.31%3.56%
1-year house growth+13.5%+7.0%
3-year house growth+31.5%+30.9%
Vacancy rate0.9%1.4%
Population3,6342,693

Ashcroft vs Kearns: what the numbers say

The median house price is $1.1M in Ashcroft and $1.1M in Kearns, so Ashcroft is the cheaper entry point.

On cash flow, Kearns leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 3.29%, compared with 2.88% in Ashcroft, a gap of 0.41 percentage points.

Over the past year house prices moved +13.5% in Ashcroft and +7.0% in Kearns, so recent momentum favours Ashcroft, although both suburbs recorded growth.

Looking back three years, Ashcroft houses are +31.5% and Kearns houses +30.9%, so Ashcroft has compounded faster than Kearns over the longer window.

Rental vacancy is 0.9% in Ashcroft and 1.4% in Kearns, so landlords in Ashcroft face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.

Ashcroft is the bigger suburb, with a population of 3,634 against 2,693, larger than Kearns; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Kearns for rental income, Ashcroft for a lower purchase price, Ashcroft for recent price momentum, Ashcroft 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