Bellevue Heights vs Woods Point
Property investment comparison - Bellevue Heights, SA 5050 vs Woods Point, SA 5253
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Bellevue Heights wins 0, Woods Point 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.
| Metric | Bellevue Heights | Woods Point |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $1.2M | - |
| Median unit price | - | $505K |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 3.00% | 4.52% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | 2.50% | 4.69% |
| 1-year house growth | +15.9% | - |
| 3-year house growth | +35.0% | - |
| Vacancy rate | 1.6% | 1.6% |
| Population | 2,712 | 188 |
Bellevue Heights vs Woods Point: what the numbers say
On cash flow, Woods Point leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 4.52%, compared with 3.00% in Bellevue Heights, a gap of 1.52 percentage points.
Rental vacancy is the same in both, at 1.6%.
Bellevue Heights is the bigger suburb, with a population of 2,712 against 188, roughly 14 times the size of Woods Point; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Woods Point for rental income. 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