Bell vs Kurri Kurri
Property investment comparison - Bell, NSW 2786 vs Kurri Kurri, NSW 2327
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Bell wins 1, Kurri Kurri wins 1. 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.
| Metric | Bell | Kurri Kurri |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $715K | $715K |
| Median unit price | - | $485K |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 4.78% | 4.10% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | - | 4.82% |
| 1-year house growth | - | +14.7% |
| 3-year house growth | - | +25.8% |
| Vacancy rate | 8.4% | 1.5% |
| Population | 44 | 6,174 |
Bell vs Kurri Kurri: what the numbers say
Houses cost about the same in both suburbs: the median house price is $715K in Bell and $715K in Kurri Kurri.
On cash flow, Bell leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 4.78%, compared with 4.10% in Kurri Kurri, a gap of 0.68 percentage points.
Rental vacancy is 1.5% in Kurri Kurri and 8.4% in Bell, so landlords in Kurri Kurri face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.
Kurri Kurri is the bigger suburb, with a population of 6,174 against 44, roughly 140 times the size of Bell; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Bell for rental income, Kurri Kurri for the tighter rental market. Which matters more depends on whether the investor is buying for cash flow, capital growth or affordability.
Keep exploring
- National investment guide - top suburbs across every metric
- Take the suburb finder quiz - 5 questions to match your goals
- How our investment score works
- Property investment glossary - every term defined
Compare any 2-4 Australian suburbs
Build your own multi-suburb comparison with the full interactive tool.
Open interactive comparison