Beverly Hills vs Killcare
Property investment comparison - Beverly Hills, NSW 2209 vs Killcare, NSW 2257
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Beverly Hills wins 3, Killcare wins 0. 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 | Beverly Hills | Killcare |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $1.9M | $1.9M |
| Median unit price | $820K | - |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 2.45% | - |
| Gross rental yield (units) | 4.12% | 3.81% |
| 1-year house growth | +8.6% | +1.9%estimate |
| 3-year house growth | +17.2% | - |
| Vacancy rate | 1.6% | 5.9% |
| Population | 10,483 | 517 |
Beverly Hills vs Killcare: 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 Killcare.
Over the past year house prices moved +8.6% in Beverly Hills and +1.9% in Killcare (an estimate), so recent momentum favours Beverly Hills, although both suburbs recorded growth.
Rental vacancy is 1.6% in Beverly Hills and 5.9% in Killcare, 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 517, roughly 20 times the size of Killcare; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Beverly Hills for recent price momentum, 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
- 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