Skip to main content

Cheltenham vs Wagstaffe

Property investment comparison - Cheltenham, NSW 2119 vs Wagstaffe, NSW 2257

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Cheltenham wins 2, Wagstaffe 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.

MetricCheltenhamWagstaffe
Median house price$2.7M$2.6M
Median unit price-$870K
Gross rental yield (houses)1.85%1.61%
Gross rental yield (units)2.77%3.88%
1-year house growth-8.2%estimate+4.2%
3-year house growth--
Vacancy rate1.2%3.8%
Population2,166240

Cheltenham vs Wagstaffe: what the numbers say

The median house price is $2.7M in Cheltenham and $2.6M in Wagstaffe, so Wagstaffe is the cheaper entry point, with Cheltenham houses about 1% dearer.

On cash flow, Cheltenham leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 1.85%, compared with 1.61% in Wagstaffe, a gap of 0.24 percentage points.

Over the past year house prices moved -8.2% in Cheltenham (an estimate) and +4.2% in Wagstaffe, so recent momentum favours Wagstaffe, while Cheltenham went backwards.

Rental vacancy is 1.2% in Cheltenham and 3.8% in Wagstaffe, so landlords in Cheltenham face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.

Cheltenham is the bigger suburb, with a population of 2,166 against 240, roughly 9 times the size of Wagstaffe; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Cheltenham for rental income, Wagstaffe for a lower purchase price, Wagstaffe for recent price momentum, Cheltenham 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