Skip to main content

Birkenhead vs Old Noarlunga

Property investment comparison - Birkenhead, SA 5015 vs Old Noarlunga, SA 5168

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Birkenhead wins 1, Old Noarlunga wins 4. 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.

MetricBirkenheadOld Noarlunga
Median house price$895K$875K
Median unit price-$650K
Gross rental yield (houses)3.60%3.91%
Gross rental yield (units)4.09%4.57%
1-year house growth+10.3%estimate+15.3%
3-year house growth-+39.9%
Vacancy rate0.5%1.7%
Population1,7981,531

Birkenhead vs Old Noarlunga: what the numbers say

The median house price is $895K in Birkenhead and $875K in Old Noarlunga, so Old Noarlunga is the cheaper entry point, with Birkenhead houses about 2% dearer.

On cash flow, Old Noarlunga leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 3.91%, compared with 3.60% in Birkenhead, a gap of 0.31 percentage points.

Over the past year house prices moved +10.3% in Birkenhead (an estimate) and +15.3% in Old Noarlunga, so recent momentum favours Old Noarlunga, although both suburbs recorded growth.

Rental vacancy is 0.5% in Birkenhead and 1.7% in Old Noarlunga, so landlords in Birkenhead face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.

Birkenhead is the bigger suburb, with a population of 1,798 against 1,531, larger than Old Noarlunga; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Old Noarlunga for rental income, Old Noarlunga for a lower purchase price, Old Noarlunga for recent price momentum, Birkenhead 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