Boree vs Stuarts Point
Property investment comparison - Boree, NSW 2325 vs Stuarts Point, NSW 2441
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Boree wins 3, Stuarts Point wins 0. 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 | Boree | Stuarts Point |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $630K | $630K |
| Median unit price | $465K | - |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 5.25% | 4.03% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | 5.09% | 4.16% |
| 1-year house growth | - | +3.4% |
| 3-year house growth | - | +12.4% |
| Vacancy rate | 2.0% | 2.1% |
| Population | 93 | 766 |
Boree vs Stuarts Point: what the numbers say
Houses cost about the same in both suburbs: the median house price is $630K in Boree and $630K in Stuarts Point.
On cash flow, Boree leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 5.25%, compared with 4.03% in Stuarts Point, a gap of 1.22 percentage points.
Rental vacancy is 2.0% in Boree and 2.1% in Stuarts Point, so landlords in Boree face less competition for tenants.
Stuarts Point is the bigger suburb, with a population of 766 against 93, roughly 8 times the size of Boree; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Boree for rental income, Boree 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