Skip to main content

Athelstone vs Marden

Property investment comparison - Athelstone, SA 5076 vs Marden, SA 5070

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

MetricAthelstoneMarden
Median house price$1.1M-
Median unit price$630K$640K
Gross rental yield (houses)3.30%2.75%
Gross rental yield (units)-4.00%
1-year house growth+14.1%+12.6%
3-year house growth+41.1%+80.0%
Vacancy rate0.5%1.2%
Population9,6012,645

Athelstone vs Marden: what the numbers say

For units, Athelstone sits at a median of $630K against $640K in Marden, which makes Athelstone the more affordable unit market and Marden the pricier one.

On cash flow, Athelstone leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 3.30%, compared with 2.75% in Marden, a gap of 0.55 percentage points.

Over the past year house prices moved +14.1% in Athelstone and +12.6% in Marden, so recent momentum favours Athelstone, although both suburbs recorded growth.

Looking back three years, Athelstone houses are +41.1% and Marden houses +80.0%, so Marden has compounded faster than Athelstone over the longer window.

Rental vacancy is 0.5% in Athelstone and 1.2% in Marden, 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 2,645, roughly 3.6 times the size of Marden; 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