Athelstone vs Woods Point
Property investment comparison - Athelstone, SA 5076 vs Woods Point, SA 5253
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Athelstone wins 1, Woods Point 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.
| Metric | Athelstone | Woods Point |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $1.1M | - |
| Median unit price | $630K | $505K |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 3.30% | 4.52% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | - | 4.69% |
| 1-year house growth | +14.1% | - |
| 3-year house growth | +41.1% | - |
| Vacancy rate | 0.5% | 1.6% |
| Population | 9,601 | 188 |
Athelstone vs Woods Point: what the numbers say
For units, Athelstone sits at a median of $630K against $505K in Woods Point, which makes Woods Point the more affordable unit market and Athelstone the pricier one.
On cash flow, Woods Point leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 4.52%, compared with 3.30% in Athelstone, a gap of 1.22 percentage points.
Rental vacancy is 0.5% in Athelstone and 1.6% in Woods Point, 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 188, roughly 51 times the size of Woods Point; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Woods Point for rental income, 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
- National investment guide - top suburbs across every metric
- Take the suburb finder quiz - 5 questions to match your goals
- How our investment score works
- Property investment glossary - every term defined
Compare any 2-4 Australian suburbs
Build your own multi-suburb comparison with the full interactive tool.
Open interactive comparison