Skip to main content

Bellevue Heights vs Fulham Gardens

Property investment comparison - Bellevue Heights, SA 5050 vs Fulham Gardens, SA 5024

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Bellevue Heights wins 2, Fulham Gardens 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 HeightsFulham Gardens
Median house price$1.2M-
Median unit price-$725K
Gross rental yield (houses)3.00%2.85%
Gross rental yield (units)2.50%4.40%
1-year house growth+15.9%+11.2%estimate
3-year house growth+35.0%-
Vacancy rate1.6%1.1%
Population2,7126,573

Bellevue Heights vs Fulham Gardens: what the numbers say

On cash flow, Bellevue Heights leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 3.00%, compared with 2.85% in Fulham Gardens, a gap of 0.15 percentage points.

Over the past year house prices moved +15.9% in Bellevue Heights and +11.2% in Fulham Gardens (an estimate), so recent momentum favours Bellevue Heights, although both suburbs recorded growth.

Rental vacancy is 1.1% in Fulham Gardens and 1.6% in Bellevue Heights, so landlords in Fulham Gardens face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.

Fulham Gardens is the bigger suburb, with a population of 6,573 against 2,712, roughly 2.4 times the size of Bellevue Heights; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Bellevue Heights for rental income, Bellevue Heights for recent price momentum, Fulham Gardens 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