Skip to main content

Bellevue Heights vs Kidman Park

Property investment comparison - Bellevue Heights, SA 5050 vs Kidman Park, SA 5025

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Bellevue Heights wins 2, Kidman Park wins 3. 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 HeightsKidman Park
Median house price$1.2M-
Median unit price-$530K
Gross rental yield (houses)3.00%2.98%
Gross rental yield (units)2.50%6.26%
1-year house growth+15.9%+13.8%
3-year house growth+35.0%+37.7%
Vacancy rate1.6%0.6%
Population2,7123,874

Bellevue Heights vs Kidman Park: what the numbers say

Gross rental yield on houses is effectively level, at 3.00% in Bellevue Heights and 2.98% in Kidman Park, so neither suburb has a cash flow edge on houses.

Over the past year house prices moved +15.9% in Bellevue Heights and +13.8% in Kidman Park, so recent momentum favours Bellevue Heights, although both suburbs recorded growth.

Looking back three years, Bellevue Heights houses are +35.0% and Kidman Park houses +37.7%, so Kidman Park has compounded faster than Bellevue Heights over the longer window.

Rental vacancy is 0.6% in Kidman Park and 1.6% in Bellevue Heights, so landlords in Kidman Park face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.

Kidman Park is the bigger suburb, with a population of 3,874 against 2,712, larger than Bellevue Heights; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Bellevue Heights for recent price momentum, Kidman Park 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