Skip to main content

Athelstone vs Kingston Park

Property investment comparison - Athelstone, SA 5076 vs Kingston Park, SA 5049

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

MetricAthelstoneKingston Park
Median house price$1.1M-
Median unit price$630K-
Gross rental yield (houses)3.30%2.09%
Gross rental yield (units)-3.05%
1-year house growth+14.1%+5.9%
3-year house growth+41.1%-28.4%
Vacancy rate0.5%1.6%
Population9,601623

Athelstone vs Kingston Park: what the numbers say

On cash flow, Athelstone leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 3.30%, compared with 2.09% in Kingston Park, a gap of 1.21 percentage points.

Over the past year house prices moved +14.1% in Athelstone and +5.9% in Kingston Park, so recent momentum favours Athelstone, although both suburbs recorded growth.

Looking back three years, Athelstone houses are +41.1% and Kingston Park houses -28.4%, so Athelstone has compounded faster than Kingston Park over the longer window.

Rental vacancy is 0.5% in Athelstone and 1.6% in Kingston Park, 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 623, roughly 15 times the size of Kingston Park; 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