Skip to main content

Athelstone vs Fulham Gardens

Property investment comparison - Athelstone, SA 5076 vs Fulham Gardens, SA 5024

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Athelstone wins 4, Fulham Gardens wins 0. 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.

MetricAthelstoneFulham Gardens
Median house price$1.1M-
Median unit price$630K$725K
Gross rental yield (houses)3.30%2.85%
Gross rental yield (units)-4.40%
1-year house growth+14.1%+11.2%estimate
3-year house growth+41.1%-
Vacancy rate0.5%1.1%
Population9,6016,573

Athelstone vs Fulham Gardens: what the numbers say

For units, Athelstone sits at a median of $630K against $725K in Fulham Gardens, which makes Athelstone the more affordable unit market and Fulham Gardens the pricier one.

On cash flow, Athelstone leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 3.30%, compared with 2.85% in Fulham Gardens, a gap of 0.45 percentage points.

Over the past year house prices moved +14.1% in Athelstone and +11.2% in Fulham Gardens (an estimate), so recent momentum favours Athelstone, although both suburbs recorded growth.

Rental vacancy is 0.5% in Athelstone and 1.1% in Fulham Gardens, 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 6,573, larger than Fulham Gardens; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Athelstone for rental income, Athelstone for recent price momentum, 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

Compare any 2-4 Australian suburbs

Build your own multi-suburb comparison with the full interactive tool.

Open interactive comparison