Beverly Hills vs North Rocks

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

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

On cash flow, North Rocks leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 2.59%, compared with 2.45% in Beverly Hills, a gap of 0.14 percentage points.

Over the past year house prices moved +8.6% in Beverly Hills and +1.1% in North Rocks, so recent momentum favours Beverly Hills, although both suburbs recorded growth.

Looking back three years, Beverly Hills houses are +17.2% and North Rocks houses -3.8%, so Beverly Hills has compounded faster than North Rocks over the longer window.

Rental vacancy is 0.4% in North Rocks and 1.6% in Beverly Hills, so landlords in North Rocks 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 9,136, larger than North Rocks; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

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