Skip to main content

Balaclava vs Riverstone

Property investment comparison - Balaclava, NSW 2575 vs Riverstone, NSW 2765

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Balaclava wins 3, Riverstone 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.

MetricBalaclavaRiverstone
Median house price$1.2M$1.2M
Median unit price$680K$910K
Gross rental yield (houses)-2.90%
Gross rental yield (units)3.68%3.15%
1-year house growth+5.2%+6.2%estimate
3-year house growth+19.6%-
Vacancy rate1.5%3.3%
Population5748,627

Balaclava vs Riverstone: what the numbers say

Houses cost about the same in both suburbs: the median house price is $1.2M in Balaclava and $1.2M in Riverstone.

For units, Balaclava sits at a median of $680K against $910K in Riverstone, which makes Balaclava the more affordable unit market and Riverstone the pricier one.

Over the past year house prices moved +5.2% in Balaclava and +6.2% in Riverstone (an estimate), so recent momentum favours Riverstone, although both suburbs recorded growth.

Rental vacancy is 1.5% in Balaclava and 3.3% in Riverstone, so landlords in Balaclava face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.

Riverstone is the bigger suburb, with a population of 8,627 against 574, roughly 15 times the size of Balaclava; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Riverstone for recent price momentum, Balaclava 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