Skip to main content

Blaxland vs Robertson

Property investment comparison - Blaxland, NSW 2774 vs Robertson, NSW 2577

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Blaxland wins 3, Robertson 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.

MetricBlaxlandRobertson
Median house price$1.2M$1.2M
Median unit price$850K$645K
Gross rental yield (houses)-3.20%
Gross rental yield (units)3.81%5.56%
1-year house growth+7.8%+1.1%
3-year house growth+24.5%+2.4%
Vacancy rate0.3%3.4%
Population7,4342,017

Blaxland vs Robertson: 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 Robertson.

For units, Blaxland sits at a median of $850K against $645K in Robertson, which makes Robertson the more affordable unit market and Blaxland the pricier one.

Over the past year house prices moved +7.8% in Blaxland and +1.1% in Robertson, so recent momentum favours Blaxland, although both suburbs recorded growth.

Looking back three years, Blaxland houses are +24.5% and Robertson houses +2.4%, so Blaxland has compounded faster than Robertson over the longer window.

Rental vacancy is 0.3% in Blaxland and 3.4% in Robertson, so landlords in Blaxland face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.

Blaxland is the bigger suburb, with a population of 7,434 against 2,017, roughly 3.7 times the size of Robertson; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Blaxland 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