Skip to main content

Athelstone vs Woodcroft

Property investment comparison - Athelstone, SA 5076 vs Woodcroft, SA 5162

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

MetricAthelstoneWoodcroft
Median house price$1.1M-
Median unit price$630K$340K
Gross rental yield (houses)3.30%-
Gross rental yield (units)-4.25%
1-year house growth+14.1%+11.1%
3-year house growth+41.1%+38.3%
Vacancy rate0.5%0.4%
Population9,60111,326

Athelstone vs Woodcroft: what the numbers say

For units, Athelstone sits at a median of $630K against $340K in Woodcroft, which makes Woodcroft the more affordable unit market and Athelstone the pricier one.

Over the past year house prices moved +14.1% in Athelstone and +11.1% in Woodcroft, so recent momentum favours Athelstone, although both suburbs recorded growth.

Looking back three years, Athelstone houses are +41.1% and Woodcroft houses +38.3%, so Athelstone has compounded faster than Woodcroft over the longer window.

Rental vacancy is 0.4% in Woodcroft and 0.5% in Athelstone, so landlords in Woodcroft face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.

Woodcroft is the bigger suburb, with a population of 11,326 against 9,601, larger than Athelstone; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Athelstone for recent price momentum, Woodcroft 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