Belmore vs Beverly Hills

The median house price is $1.9M in Belmore and $1.9M in Beverly Hills, so Belmore is the cheaper entry point.

For units, Belmore sits at a median of $665K against $820K in Beverly Hills, which makes Belmore the more affordable unit market and Beverly Hills the pricier one.

On cash flow, Beverly Hills leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 2.45%, compared with 2.40% in Belmore, a gap of 0.05 percentage points.

Over the past year house prices moved +5.4% in Belmore (an estimate) and +8.6% in Beverly Hills, so recent momentum favours Beverly Hills, although both suburbs recorded growth.

Rental vacancy is 1.1% in Belmore and 1.6% in Beverly Hills, so landlords in Belmore face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.

Belmore is the bigger suburb, with a population of 13,781 against 10,483, larger than Beverly Hills; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Beverly Hills for rental income, Belmore for a lower purchase price, Beverly Hills for recent price momentum, Belmore for the tighter rental market. Which matters more depends on whether the investor is buying for cash flow, capital growth or affordability.