Bonny Hills vs Cawdor
Property investment comparison - Bonny Hills, NSW 2445 vs Cawdor, NSW 2570
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Bonny Hills wins 1, Cawdor 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.
| Metric | Bonny Hills | Cawdor |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $1.1M | $1.1M |
| Median unit price | - | $715K |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 3.30% | 3.70% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | 4.40% | 4.09% |
| 1-year house growth | +7.1% | - |
| 3-year house growth | +2.5% | - |
| Vacancy rate | 1.0% | 0.9% |
| Population | 3,045 | 430 |
Bonny Hills vs Cawdor: what the numbers say
Houses cost about the same in both suburbs: the median house price is $1.1M in Bonny Hills and $1.1M in Cawdor.
On cash flow, Cawdor leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 3.70%, compared with 3.30% in Bonny Hills, a gap of 0.40 percentage points.
Rental vacancy is 0.9% in Cawdor and 1.0% in Bonny Hills, so landlords in Cawdor face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.
Bonny Hills is the bigger suburb, with a population of 3,045 against 430, roughly 7 times the size of Cawdor; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Cawdor for rental income, Cawdor for the tighter rental market. Which matters more depends on whether the investor is buying for cash flow, capital growth or affordability.
Keep exploring
- National investment guide - top suburbs across every metric
- Take the suburb finder quiz - 5 questions to match your goals
- How our investment score works
- Property investment glossary - every term defined
Compare any 2-4 Australian suburbs
Build your own multi-suburb comparison with the full interactive tool.
Open interactive comparison