Skip to main content

Athelstone vs Kidman Park

Property investment comparison - Athelstone, SA 5076 vs Kidman Park, SA 5025

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Athelstone wins 4, Kidman Park 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.

MetricAthelstoneKidman Park
Median house price$1.1M-
Median unit price$630K$530K
Gross rental yield (houses)3.30%2.98%
Gross rental yield (units)-6.26%
1-year house growth+14.1%+13.8%
3-year house growth+41.1%+37.7%
Vacancy rate0.5%0.6%
Population9,6013,874

Athelstone vs Kidman Park: what the numbers say

For units, Athelstone sits at a median of $630K against $530K in Kidman Park, which makes Kidman Park the more affordable unit market and Athelstone the pricier one.

On cash flow, Athelstone leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 3.30%, compared with 2.98% in Kidman Park, a gap of 0.32 percentage points.

Over the past year house prices moved +14.1% in Athelstone and +13.8% in Kidman Park, so recent momentum favours Athelstone, although both suburbs recorded growth.

Looking back three years, Athelstone houses are +41.1% and Kidman Park houses +37.7%, so Athelstone has compounded faster than Kidman Park over the longer window.

Rental vacancy is the same in both, at 0.5%.

Athelstone is the bigger suburb, with a population of 9,601 against 3,874, roughly 2.5 times the size of Kidman Park; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

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