Skip to main content

Bellevue Heights vs New Port

Property investment comparison - Bellevue Heights, SA 5050 vs New Port, SA 5015

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Bellevue Heights wins 1, New Port 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 HeightsNew Port
Median house price$1.2M-
Median unit price-$525K
Gross rental yield (houses)3.00%3.73%
Gross rental yield (units)2.50%4.59%
1-year house growth+15.9%+11.4%
3-year house growth+35.0%-
Vacancy rate1.6%0.8%
Population2,712647

Bellevue Heights vs New Port: what the numbers say

On cash flow, New Port leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 3.73%, compared with 3.00% in Bellevue Heights, a gap of 0.73 percentage points.

Over the past year house prices moved +15.9% in Bellevue Heights and +11.4% in New Port, so recent momentum favours Bellevue Heights, although both suburbs recorded growth.

Rental vacancy is 0.8% in New Port and 1.6% in Bellevue Heights, so landlords in New Port 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 647, roughly 4.2 times the size of New Port; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: New Port for rental income, Bellevue Heights for recent price momentum, New Port 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