Skip to main content

Bellevue Heights vs Fairview Park

Property investment comparison - Bellevue Heights, SA 5050 vs Fairview Park, SA 5126

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Bellevue Heights wins 3, Fairview Park wins 2. 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.

MetricBellevue HeightsFairview Park
Median house price$1.2M-
Median unit price-$700K
Gross rental yield (houses)3.00%3.75%
Gross rental yield (units)2.50%2.02%
1-year house growth+15.9%+13.4%
3-year house growth+35.0%+40.6%
Vacancy rate1.6%2.1%
Population2,7123,792

Bellevue Heights vs Fairview Park: what the numbers say

On cash flow, Fairview Park leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 3.75%, compared with 3.00% in Bellevue Heights, a gap of 0.75 percentage points.

Over the past year house prices moved +15.9% in Bellevue Heights and +13.4% in Fairview Park, so recent momentum favours Bellevue Heights, although both suburbs recorded growth.

Looking back three years, Bellevue Heights houses are +35.0% and Fairview Park houses +40.6%, so Fairview Park has compounded faster than Bellevue Heights over the longer window.

Rental vacancy is 1.6% in Bellevue Heights and 2.1% in Fairview Park, so landlords in Bellevue Heights face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.

Fairview Park is the bigger suburb, with a population of 3,792 against 2,712, larger than Bellevue Heights; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Fairview Park for rental income, Bellevue Heights for recent price momentum, Bellevue Heights 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