Skip to main content

Barringella vs Smiths Lake

Property investment comparison - Barringella, NSW 2540 vs Smiths Lake, NSW 2428

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Barringella wins 1, Smiths Lake 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.

MetricBarringellaSmiths Lake
Median house price$825K$825K
Median unit price$625K$540K
Gross rental yield (houses)4.41%3.66%
Gross rental yield (units)4.33%5.32%
1-year house growth-+1.0%
3-year house growth-+15.3%
Vacancy rate2.5%1.6%
Population301,332

Barringella vs Smiths Lake: what the numbers say

Houses cost about the same in both suburbs: the median house price is $825K in Barringella and $825K in Smiths Lake.

For units, Barringella sits at a median of $625K against $540K in Smiths Lake, which makes Smiths Lake the more affordable unit market and Barringella the pricier one.

On cash flow, Barringella leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 4.41%, compared with 3.66% in Smiths Lake, a gap of 0.75 percentage points.

Rental vacancy is 1.6% in Smiths Lake and 2.5% in Barringella, so landlords in Smiths Lake face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.

Smiths Lake is the bigger suburb, with a population of 1,332 against 30, roughly 44 times the size of Barringella; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Barringella for rental income, Smiths Lake 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