Skip to main content

Chittaway Point vs Yamba

Property investment comparison - Chittaway Point, NSW 2261 vs Yamba, NSW 2464

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Chittaway Point wins 3, Yamba wins 1. 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.

MetricChittaway PointYamba
Median house price$985K$985K
Median unit price$675K$780K
Gross rental yield (houses)3.70%3.59%
Gross rental yield (units)4.83%-
1-year house growth+8.0%estimate+4.7%
3-year house growth-+11.9%
Vacancy rate2.3%1.2%
Population9476,405

Chittaway Point vs Yamba: what the numbers say

Houses cost about the same in both suburbs: the median house price is $985K in Chittaway Point and $985K in Yamba.

For units, Chittaway Point sits at a median of $675K against $780K in Yamba, which makes Chittaway Point the more affordable unit market and Yamba the pricier one.

On cash flow, Chittaway Point leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 3.70%, compared with 3.59% in Yamba, a gap of 0.11 percentage points.

Over the past year house prices moved +8.0% in Chittaway Point (an estimate) and +4.7% in Yamba, so recent momentum favours Chittaway Point, although both suburbs recorded growth.

Rental vacancy is 1.2% in Yamba and 2.3% in Chittaway Point, so landlords in Yamba face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.

Yamba is the bigger suburb, with a population of 6,405 against 947, roughly 7 times the size of Chittaway Point; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Chittaway Point for rental income, Chittaway Point for recent price momentum, Yamba 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