Skip to main content

Cessnock vs Freemans Waterhole

Property investment comparison - Cessnock, NSW 2325 vs Freemans Waterhole, NSW 2323

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

MetricCessnockFreemans Waterhole
Median house price$725K$725K
Median unit price$540K$535K
Gross rental yield (houses)4.19%4.72%
Gross rental yield (units)4.50%5.53%
1-year house growth+14.8%-
3-year house growth+19.8%-
Vacancy rate1.2%0.6%
Population16,300120

Cessnock vs Freemans Waterhole: what the numbers say

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

For units, Cessnock sits at a median of $540K against $535K in Freemans Waterhole, which makes Freemans Waterhole the more affordable unit market and Cessnock the pricier one.

On cash flow, Freemans Waterhole leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 4.72%, compared with 4.19% in Cessnock, a gap of 0.53 percentage points.

Rental vacancy is 0.6% in Freemans Waterhole and 1.2% in Cessnock, 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.

Cessnock is the bigger suburb, with a population of 16,300 against 120, roughly 136 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
Cessnock vs Freemans Waterhole: Suburb Comparison 2026