Cooma vs Gunnedah
Property investment comparison - Cooma, NSW 2630 vs Gunnedah, NSW 2380
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Cooma wins 1, Gunnedah 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.
| Metric | Cooma | Gunnedah |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $585K | $585K |
| Median unit price | - | $400K |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 4.88% | - |
| Gross rental yield (units) | 3.28% | 5.45% |
| 1-year house growth | +4.1% | +15.3% |
| 3-year house growth | +13.5% | - |
| Vacancy rate | 1.8% | 2.9% |
| Population | 6,715 | 10,359 |
Cooma vs Gunnedah: what the numbers say
Houses cost about the same in both suburbs: the median house price is $585K in Cooma and $585K in Gunnedah.
Over the past year house prices moved +4.1% in Cooma and +15.3% in Gunnedah, so recent momentum favours Gunnedah, although both suburbs recorded growth.
Rental vacancy is 1.8% in Cooma and 2.9% in Gunnedah, so landlords in Cooma face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.
Gunnedah is the bigger suburb, with a population of 10,359 against 6,715, larger than Cooma; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Gunnedah for recent price momentum, Cooma 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