Charlestown vs Oakhurst
Property investment comparison - Charlestown, NSW 2290 vs Oakhurst, NSW 2761
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Charlestown wins 3, Oakhurst wins 0. 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 | Charlestown | Oakhurst |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $1.1M | $1.1M |
| Median unit price | $730K | - |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 3.50% | - |
| Gross rental yield (units) | 4.46% | 4.30% |
| 1-year house growth | +14.9% | +8.5%estimate |
| 3-year house growth | +24.0% | - |
| Vacancy rate | 1.9% | 2.7% |
| Population | 13,601 | 6,947 |
Charlestown vs Oakhurst: what the numbers say
Houses cost about the same in both suburbs: the median house price is $1.1M in Charlestown and $1.1M in Oakhurst.
Over the past year house prices moved +14.9% in Charlestown and +8.5% in Oakhurst (an estimate), so recent momentum favours Charlestown, although both suburbs recorded growth.
Rental vacancy is 1.9% in Charlestown and 2.7% in Oakhurst, so landlords in Charlestown face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.
Charlestown is the bigger suburb, with a population of 13,601 against 6,947, larger than Oakhurst; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Charlestown for recent price momentum, Charlestown 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