Skip to main content

Beresfield vs Bourkelands

Property investment comparison - Beresfield, NSW 2322 vs Bourkelands, NSW 2650

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Beresfield wins 1, Bourkelands 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.

MetricBeresfieldBourkelands
Median house price$780K$780K
Median unit price$620K-
Gross rental yield (houses)4.03%4.20%
Gross rental yield (units)4.37%4.60%
1-year house growth+11.7%estimate+8.6%
3-year house growth-+16.7%
Vacancy rate1.0%0.9%
Population3,2673,113

Beresfield vs Bourkelands: what the numbers say

Houses cost about the same in both suburbs: the median house price is $780K in Beresfield and $780K in Bourkelands.

On cash flow, Bourkelands leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 4.20%, compared with 4.03% in Beresfield, a gap of 0.17 percentage points.

Over the past year house prices moved +11.7% in Beresfield (an estimate) and +8.6% in Bourkelands, so recent momentum favours Beresfield, although both suburbs recorded growth.

Rental vacancy is 0.9% in Bourkelands and 1.0% in Beresfield, so landlords in Bourkelands face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.

Beresfield is the bigger suburb, with a population of 3,267 against 3,113, larger than Bourkelands; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Bourkelands for rental income, Beresfield for recent price momentum, Bourkelands 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