Skip to main content

Athelstone vs Trott Park

Property investment comparison - Athelstone, SA 5076 vs Trott Park, SA 5158

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Athelstone wins 2, Trott Park wins 2. 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.

MetricAthelstoneTrott Park
Median house price$1.1M-
Median unit price$630K-
Gross rental yield (houses)3.30%3.62%
Gross rental yield (units)--
1-year house growth+14.1%+12.4%
3-year house growth+41.1%+45.8%
Vacancy rate0.5%0.7%
Population9,6013,124

Athelstone vs Trott Park: what the numbers say

On cash flow, Trott Park leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 3.62%, compared with 3.30% in Athelstone, a gap of 0.32 percentage points.

Over the past year house prices moved +14.1% in Athelstone and +12.4% in Trott Park, so recent momentum favours Athelstone, although both suburbs recorded growth.

Looking back three years, Athelstone houses are +41.1% and Trott Park houses +45.8%, so Trott Park has compounded faster than Athelstone over the longer window.

Rental vacancy is 0.5% in Athelstone and 0.7% in Trott 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 3,124, roughly 3.1 times the size of Trott Park; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Trott Park 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