Skip to main content

Como vs Thirroul

Property investment comparison - Como, NSW 2226 vs Thirroul, NSW 2515

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Como wins 2, Thirroul 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.

MetricComoThirroul
Median house price$1.9M$1.9M
Median unit price-$1.2M
Gross rental yield (houses)2.81%3.10%
Gross rental yield (units)--
1-year house growth+5.0%estimate+4.5%
3-year house growth-+8.3%
Vacancy rate0.5%1.6%
Population4,0536,348

Como vs Thirroul: what the numbers say

The median house price is $1.9M in Como and $1.9M in Thirroul, so Thirroul is the cheaper entry point.

On cash flow, Thirroul leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 3.10%, compared with 2.81% in Como, a gap of 0.29 percentage points.

Over the past year house prices moved +5.0% in Como (an estimate) and +4.5% in Thirroul, so recent momentum favours Como, although both suburbs recorded growth.

Rental vacancy is 0.5% in Como and 1.6% in Thirroul, so landlords in Como face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.

Thirroul is the bigger suburb, with a population of 6,348 against 4,053, larger than Como; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Thirroul for rental income, Thirroul for a lower purchase price, Como for recent price momentum, Como 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