Bellevue Heights vs Green Fields
Property investment comparison - Bellevue Heights, SA 5050 vs Green Fields, SA 5107
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Bellevue Heights wins 0, Green Fields 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 | Bellevue Heights | Green Fields |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $1.2M | - |
| Median unit price | - | - |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 3.00% | - |
| Gross rental yield (units) | 2.50% | - |
| 1-year house growth | +15.9% | - |
| 3-year house growth | +35.0% | - |
| Vacancy rate | 1.6% | 0.6% |
| Population | 2,712 | 170 |
Bellevue Heights vs Green Fields: what the numbers say
Rental vacancy is 0.6% in Green Fields and 1.6% in Bellevue Heights, so landlords in Green Fields face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.
Bellevue Heights is the bigger suburb, with a population of 2,712 against 170, roughly 16 times the size of Green Fields; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Green Fields for the tighter rental market. Which matters more depends on whether the investor is buying for cash flow, capital growth or affordability.
Full profile
Bellevue Heights, SA 5050
Open Bellevue Heights suburb profileRecent sales in Bellevue Heights
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