Skip to main content

Bellevue Heights vs Osborne

Property investment comparison - Bellevue Heights, SA 5050 vs Osborne, SA 5017

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Bellevue Heights wins 2, Osborne 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 HeightsOsborne
Median house price$1.2M-
Median unit price--
Gross rental yield (houses)3.00%3.91%
Gross rental yield (units)2.50%2.38%
1-year house growth+15.9%+10.9%
3-year house growth+35.0%+43.4%
Vacancy rate1.6%0.9%
Population2,7121,951

Bellevue Heights vs Osborne: what the numbers say

On cash flow, Osborne leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 3.91%, compared with 3.00% in Bellevue Heights, a gap of 0.91 percentage points.

Over the past year house prices moved +15.9% in Bellevue Heights and +10.9% in Osborne, so recent momentum favours Bellevue Heights, although both suburbs recorded growth.

Looking back three years, Bellevue Heights houses are +35.0% and Osborne houses +43.4%, so Osborne has compounded faster than Bellevue Heights over the longer window.

Rental vacancy is 0.9% in Osborne and 1.6% in Bellevue Heights, so landlords in Osborne 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 1,951, larger than Osborne; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

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