Burrier vs Normanhurst
Property investment comparison - Burrier, NSW 2540 vs Normanhurst, NSW 2076
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Burrier wins 1, Normanhurst 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 | Burrier | Normanhurst |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $1.9M | $1.9M |
| Median unit price | $625K | - |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 1.92% | 2.35% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | 4.46% | 3.17% |
| 1-year house growth | - | -4.7% |
| 3-year house growth | - | +2.1% |
| Vacancy rate | 2.6% | 0.7% |
| Population | 70 | 5,387 |
Burrier vs Normanhurst: what the numbers say
Houses cost about the same in both suburbs: the median house price is $1.9M in Burrier and $1.9M in Normanhurst.
On cash flow, Normanhurst leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 2.35%, compared with 1.92% in Burrier, a gap of 0.43 percentage points.
Rental vacancy is 0.7% in Normanhurst and 2.6% in Burrier, so landlords in Normanhurst face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.
Normanhurst is the bigger suburb, with a population of 5,387 against 70, roughly 77 times the size of Burrier; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Normanhurst for rental income, Normanhurst 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