Skip to main content

Burnside vs Seacliff

Property investment comparison - Burnside, SA 5066 vs Seacliff, SA 5049

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Burnside wins 2, Seacliff wins 4. 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.

MetricBurnsideSeacliff
Median house price$1.8M$1.8M
Median unit price$820K-
Gross rental yield (houses)2.32%2.42%
Gross rental yield (units)3.80%3.50%
1-year house growth+4.7%+3.1%
3-year house growth+42.5%+59.2%
Vacancy rate3.4%2.0%
Population3,0602,117

Burnside vs Seacliff: what the numbers say

The median house price is $1.8M in Burnside and $1.8M in Seacliff, so Seacliff is the cheaper entry point, with Burnside houses about 5% dearer.

On cash flow, Seacliff leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 2.42%, compared with 2.32% in Burnside, a gap of 0.10 percentage points.

Over the past year house prices moved +4.7% in Burnside and +3.1% in Seacliff, so recent momentum favours Burnside, although both suburbs recorded growth.

Looking back three years, Burnside houses are +42.5% and Seacliff houses +59.2%, so Seacliff has compounded faster than Burnside over the longer window.

Rental vacancy is 2.0% in Seacliff and 3.4% in Burnside, so landlords in Seacliff face less competition for tenants.

Burnside is the bigger suburb, with a population of 3,060 against 2,117, larger than Seacliff; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Seacliff for rental income, Seacliff for a lower purchase price, Burnside for recent price momentum, Seacliff 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