Belfield vs Hurstville

The median house price is $2.2M in Belfield and $2.2M in Hurstville, so Hurstville is the cheaper entry point, with Belfield houses about 1% dearer.

For units, Belfield sits at a median of $970K against $780K in Hurstville, which makes Hurstville the more affordable unit market and Belfield the pricier one.

On cash flow, Belfield leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 2.30%, compared with 2.00% in Hurstville, a gap of 0.30 percentage points.

Over the past year house prices moved +9.7% in Belfield and +4.2% in Hurstville, so recent momentum favours Belfield, although both suburbs recorded growth.

Looking back three years, Belfield houses are +14.0% and Hurstville houses +23.8%, so Hurstville has compounded faster than Belfield over the longer window.

Rental vacancy is 1.2% in Belfield and 1.3% in Hurstville, so landlords in Belfield face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.

Hurstville is the bigger suburb, with a population of 31,162 against 6,555, roughly 4.8 times the size of Belfield; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Belfield for rental income, Hurstville for a lower purchase price, Belfield for recent price momentum, Belfield for the tighter rental market. Which matters more depends on whether the investor is buying for cash flow, capital growth or affordability.