Skip to main content

Bangalow vs Copacabana

Property investment comparison - Bangalow, NSW 2479 vs Copacabana, NSW 2251

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Bangalow wins 5, Copacabana wins 0. 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.

MetricBangalowCopacabana
Median house price$1.6M$1.6M
Median unit price-$1.6M
Gross rental yield (houses)3.60%2.71%
Gross rental yield (units)4.17%1.93%
1-year house growth+3.3%-6.7%
3-year house growth+8.2%-2.9%
Vacancy rate1.9%4.3%
Population2,7522,809

Bangalow vs Copacabana: what the numbers say

Houses cost about the same in both suburbs: the median house price is $1.6M in Bangalow and $1.6M in Copacabana.

On cash flow, Bangalow leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 3.60%, compared with 2.71% in Copacabana, a gap of 0.89 percentage points.

Over the past year house prices moved +3.3% in Bangalow and -6.7% in Copacabana, so recent momentum favours Bangalow, while Copacabana went backwards.

Looking back three years, Bangalow houses are +8.2% and Copacabana houses -2.9%, so Bangalow has compounded faster than Copacabana over the longer window.

Rental vacancy is 1.9% in Bangalow and 4.3% in Copacabana, so landlords in Bangalow face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.

Copacabana is the bigger suburb, with a population of 2,809 against 2,752, larger than Bangalow; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Bangalow for rental income, Bangalow for recent price momentum, Bangalow 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