Skip to main content

Catherine Field vs Mount Annan

Property investment comparison - Catherine Field, NSW 2557 vs Mount Annan, NSW 2567

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Catherine Field wins 1, Mount Annan 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.

MetricCatherine FieldMount Annan
Median house price$1.2M$1.2M
Median unit price$900K-
Gross rental yield (houses)3.26%-
Gross rental yield (units)3.70%4.10%
1-year house growth+16.8%+8.4%
3-year house growth+15.5%+18.2%
Vacancy rate2.1%1.6%
Population2,60911,784

Catherine Field vs Mount Annan: what the numbers say

The median house price is $1.2M in Catherine Field and $1.2M in Mount Annan, so Mount Annan is the cheaper entry point.

Over the past year house prices moved +16.8% in Catherine Field and +8.4% in Mount Annan, so recent momentum favours Catherine Field, although both suburbs recorded growth.

Looking back three years, Catherine Field houses are +15.5% and Mount Annan houses +18.2%, so Mount Annan has compounded faster than Catherine Field over the longer window.

Rental vacancy is 1.6% in Mount Annan and 2.1% in Catherine Field, so landlords in Mount Annan face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.

Mount Annan is the bigger suburb, with a population of 11,784 against 2,609, roughly 4.5 times the size of Catherine Field; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Mount Annan for a lower purchase price, Catherine Field for recent price momentum, Mount Annan 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