Skip to main content

Blaxland vs Lurnea

Property investment comparison - Blaxland, NSW 2774 vs Lurnea, NSW 2170

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Blaxland wins 1, Lurnea 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.

MetricBlaxlandLurnea
Median house price$1.2M$1.2M
Median unit price$850K$750K
Gross rental yield (houses)-3.02%
Gross rental yield (units)3.81%-
1-year house growth+7.8%+10.6%estimate
3-year house growth+24.5%-
Vacancy rate0.3%0.8%
Population7,43410,057

Blaxland vs Lurnea: what the numbers say

Houses cost about the same in both suburbs: the median house price is $1.2M in Blaxland and $1.2M in Lurnea.

For units, Blaxland sits at a median of $850K against $750K in Lurnea, which makes Lurnea the more affordable unit market and Blaxland the pricier one.

Over the past year house prices moved +7.8% in Blaxland and +10.6% in Lurnea (an estimate), so recent momentum favours Lurnea, although both suburbs recorded growth.

Rental vacancy is 0.3% in Blaxland and 0.8% in Lurnea, so landlords in Blaxland face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.

Lurnea is the bigger suburb, with a population of 10,057 against 7,434, larger than Blaxland; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Lurnea for recent price momentum, Blaxland 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