Skip to main content

Chelsea vs Oak Park

Property investment comparison - Chelsea, VIC 3196 vs Oak Park, VIC 3046

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Chelsea wins 3, Oak Park 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.

MetricChelseaOak Park
Median house price$1.1M$1.1M
Median unit price$745K$665K
Gross rental yield (houses)3.25%-
Gross rental yield (units)4.02%4.35%
1-year house growth+8.1%estimate-4.3%
3-year house growth-+4.2%
Vacancy rate1.3%1.5%
Population8,3476,714

Chelsea vs Oak Park: what the numbers say

The median house price is $1.1M in Chelsea and $1.1M in Oak Park, so Chelsea is the cheaper entry point, with Oak Park houses about 1% dearer.

For units, Chelsea sits at a median of $745K against $665K in Oak Park, which makes Oak Park the more affordable unit market and Chelsea the pricier one.

Over the past year house prices moved +8.1% in Chelsea (an estimate) and -4.3% in Oak Park, so recent momentum favours Chelsea, while Oak Park went backwards.

Rental vacancy is 1.3% in Chelsea and 1.5% in Oak Park, so landlords in Chelsea face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.

Chelsea is the bigger suburb, with a population of 8,347 against 6,714, larger than Oak Park; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Chelsea for a lower purchase price, Chelsea for recent price momentum, Chelsea 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