Skip to main content

Bundeena vs Saratoga

Property investment comparison - Bundeena, NSW 2230 vs Saratoga, NSW 2251

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Bundeena wins 1, Saratoga wins 3. 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.

MetricBundeenaSaratoga
Median house price$1.4M$1.4M
Median unit price--
Gross rental yield (houses)3.20%-
Gross rental yield (units)2.33%3.55%
1-year house growth+2.8%+5.4%
3-year house growth-9.7%+21.2%
Vacancy rate1.6%4.6%
Population2,1033,982

Bundeena vs Saratoga: what the numbers say

Houses cost about the same in both suburbs: the median house price is $1.4M in Bundeena and $1.4M in Saratoga.

Over the past year house prices moved +2.8% in Bundeena and +5.4% in Saratoga, so recent momentum favours Saratoga, although both suburbs recorded growth.

Looking back three years, Bundeena houses are -9.7% and Saratoga houses +21.2%, so Saratoga has compounded faster than Bundeena over the longer window.

Rental vacancy is 1.6% in Bundeena and 4.6% in Saratoga, so landlords in Bundeena face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.

Saratoga is the bigger suburb, with a population of 3,982 against 2,103, larger than Bundeena; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Saratoga for recent price momentum, Bundeena 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