Skip to main content

Beaconsfield vs Eastlakes

Property investment comparison - Beaconsfield, NSW 2015 vs Eastlakes, NSW 2018

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Beaconsfield wins 0, Eastlakes wins 5. 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.

MetricBeaconsfieldEastlakes
Median house price$2.3M$2.3M
Median unit price$1.4M$770K
Gross rental yield (houses)2.83%-
Gross rental yield (units)3.43%4.70%
1-year house growth+3.5%+3.5%estimate
3-year house growth+13.4%-
Vacancy rate2.6%1.4%
Population1,1726,347

Beaconsfield vs Eastlakes: what the numbers say

The median house price is $2.3M in Beaconsfield and $2.3M in Eastlakes, so Eastlakes is the cheaper entry point, with Beaconsfield houses about 1% dearer.

For units, Beaconsfield sits at a median of $1.4M against $770K in Eastlakes, which makes Eastlakes the more affordable unit market and Beaconsfield the pricier one.

Over the past year house prices moved +3.5% in Beaconsfield and +3.5% in Eastlakes (an estimate), so recent momentum favours Eastlakes, although both suburbs recorded growth.

Rental vacancy is 1.4% in Eastlakes and 2.6% in Beaconsfield, so landlords in Eastlakes face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.

Eastlakes is the bigger suburb, with a population of 6,347 against 1,172, roughly 5 times the size of Beaconsfield; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Eastlakes for a lower purchase price, Eastlakes for recent price momentum, Eastlakes 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