Coppabella vs Lockhart
Property investment comparison - Coppabella, NSW 2644 vs Lockhart, NSW 2656
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Coppabella wins 1, Lockhart 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 | Coppabella | Lockhart |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $390K | $385K |
| Median unit price | - | $660K |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 6.36% | 5.79% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | - | 2.10% |
| 1-year house growth | - | +11.6% |
| 3-year house growth | - | +35.5% |
| Vacancy rate | 2.0% | 0.7% |
| Population | 12 | 1,019 |
Coppabella vs Lockhart: what the numbers say
The median house price is $390K in Coppabella and $385K in Lockhart, so Lockhart is the cheaper entry point, with Coppabella houses about 1% dearer.
On cash flow, Coppabella leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 6.36%, compared with 5.79% in Lockhart, a gap of 0.57 percentage points.
Rental vacancy is 0.7% in Lockhart and 2.0% in Coppabella, so landlords in Lockhart face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.
Lockhart is the bigger suburb, with a population of 1,019 against 12, roughly 85 times the size of Coppabella; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Coppabella for rental income, Lockhart for a lower purchase price, Lockhart 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