Skip to main content

Beverly Hills vs Burrier

Property investment comparison - Beverly Hills, NSW 2209 vs Burrier, NSW 2540

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Beverly Hills wins 2, Burrier wins 2. 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.

MetricBeverly HillsBurrier
Median house price$1.9M$1.9M
Median unit price$820K$625K
Gross rental yield (houses)2.45%1.92%
Gross rental yield (units)4.12%4.46%
1-year house growth+8.6%-
3-year house growth+17.2%-
Vacancy rate1.6%2.6%
Population10,48370

Beverly Hills vs Burrier: what the numbers say

Houses cost about the same in both suburbs: the median house price is $1.9M in Beverly Hills and $1.9M in Burrier.

For units, Beverly Hills sits at a median of $820K against $625K in Burrier, which makes Burrier 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 1.92% in Burrier, a gap of 0.53 percentage points.

Rental vacancy is 1.6% in Beverly Hills and 2.6% in Burrier, so landlords in Beverly Hills face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.

Beverly Hills is the bigger suburb, with a population of 10,483 against 70, roughly 150 times the size of Burrier; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Beverly Hills for rental income, Beverly Hills 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