Skip to main content

Bellevue Heights vs Kingston Park

Property investment comparison - Bellevue Heights, SA 5050 vs Kingston Park, SA 5049

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Bellevue Heights wins 3, Kingston 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 HeightsKingston Park
Median house price$1.2M-
Median unit price--
Gross rental yield (houses)3.00%2.09%
Gross rental yield (units)2.50%3.05%
1-year house growth+15.9%+5.9%
3-year house growth+35.0%-28.4%
Vacancy rate1.6%1.6%
Population2,712623

Bellevue Heights vs Kingston Park: what the numbers say

On cash flow, Bellevue Heights leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 3.00%, compared with 2.09% in Kingston Park, a gap of 0.91 percentage points.

Over the past year house prices moved +15.9% in Bellevue Heights and +5.9% in Kingston Park, so recent momentum favours Bellevue Heights, although both suburbs recorded growth.

Looking back three years, Bellevue Heights houses are +35.0% and Kingston Park houses -28.4%, so Bellevue Heights has compounded faster than Kingston Park over the longer window.

Rental vacancy is the same in both, at 1.6%.

Bellevue Heights is the bigger suburb, with a population of 2,712 against 623, roughly 4.4 times the size of Kingston Park; 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. 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