Skip to main content

Catalina vs Freemans Waterhole

Property investment comparison - Catalina, NSW 2536 vs Freemans Waterhole, NSW 2323

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Catalina wins 0, Freemans Waterhole 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.

MetricCatalinaFreemans Waterhole
Median house price$725K$725K
Median unit price-$535K
Gross rental yield (houses)4.20%4.72%
Gross rental yield (units)4.15%5.53%
1-year house growth+5.6%-
3-year house growth+4.9%-
Vacancy rate1.3%0.6%
Population2,522120

Catalina vs Freemans Waterhole: what the numbers say

Houses cost about the same in both suburbs: the median house price is $725K in Catalina and $725K in Freemans Waterhole.

On cash flow, Freemans Waterhole leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 4.72%, compared with 4.20% in Catalina, a gap of 0.52 percentage points.

Rental vacancy is 0.6% in Freemans Waterhole and 1.3% in Catalina, so landlords in Freemans Waterhole face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.

Catalina is the bigger suburb, with a population of 2,522 against 120, roughly 21 times the size of Freemans Waterhole; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Freemans Waterhole for rental income, Freemans Waterhole 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