Skip to main content

Bargo vs Lorn

Property investment comparison - Bargo, NSW 2574 vs Lorn, NSW 2320

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Bargo wins 2, Lorn wins 3. 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.

MetricBargoLorn
Median house price$1.1M$1.1M
Median unit price--
Gross rental yield (houses)3.08%3.45%
Gross rental yield (units)4.32%4.21%
1-year house growth+8.2%+8.8%
3-year house growth+22.3%+22.8%
Vacancy rate0.9%2.0%
Population4,5161,465

Bargo vs Lorn: what the numbers say

Houses cost about the same in both suburbs: the median house price is $1.1M in Bargo and $1.1M in Lorn.

On cash flow, Lorn leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 3.45%, compared with 3.08% in Bargo, a gap of 0.37 percentage points.

Over the past year house prices moved +8.2% in Bargo and +8.8% in Lorn, so recent momentum favours Lorn, although both suburbs recorded growth.

Looking back three years, Bargo houses are +22.3% and Lorn houses +22.8%, so Lorn has compounded faster than Bargo over the longer window.

Rental vacancy is 0.9% in Bargo and 2.0% in Lorn, so landlords in Bargo face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.

Bargo is the bigger suburb, with a population of 4,516 against 1,465, roughly 3.1 times the size of Lorn; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Lorn for rental income, Lorn for recent price momentum, Bargo 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