Skip to main content

Birkenhead vs Port Adelaide

Property investment comparison - Birkenhead, SA 5015 vs Port Adelaide, SA 5015

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Birkenhead wins 1, Port Adelaide 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.

MetricBirkenheadPort Adelaide
Median house price$895K$870K
Median unit price-$700K
Gross rental yield (houses)3.60%3.90%
Gross rental yield (units)4.09%4.51%
1-year house growth+10.3%estimate+15.3%estimate
3-year house growth--
Vacancy rate0.5%0.6%
Population1,7981,338

Birkenhead vs Port Adelaide: what the numbers say

The median house price is $895K in Birkenhead and $870K in Port Adelaide, so Port Adelaide is the cheaper entry point, with Birkenhead houses about 3% dearer.

On cash flow, Port Adelaide leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 3.90%, compared with 3.60% in Birkenhead, a gap of 0.30 percentage points.

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

Rental vacancy is 0.5% in Birkenhead and 0.6% in Port Adelaide, 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 1,338, larger than Port Adelaide; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Port Adelaide for rental income, Port Adelaide for a lower purchase price, Port Adelaide 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