Coppabella vs Wellington
Property investment comparison - Coppabella, NSW 2644 vs Wellington, NSW 2820
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Coppabella wins 0, Wellington 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.
| Metric | Coppabella | Wellington |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $390K | $380K |
| Median unit price | - | $425K |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 6.36% | 6.41% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | - | 4.05% |
| 1-year house growth | - | +20.1% |
| 3-year house growth | - | +32.5% |
| Vacancy rate | 2.0% | 1.3% |
| Population | 12 | 4,096 |
Coppabella vs Wellington: what the numbers say
The median house price is $390K in Coppabella and $380K in Wellington, so Wellington is the cheaper entry point, with Coppabella houses about 3% dearer.
Gross rental yield on houses is effectively level, at 6.36% in Coppabella and 6.41% in Wellington, so neither suburb has a cash flow edge on houses.
Rental vacancy is 1.3% in Wellington and 2.0% in Coppabella, so landlords in Wellington face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.
Wellington is the bigger suburb, with a population of 4,096 against 12, roughly 341 times the size of Coppabella; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Wellington for a lower purchase price, Wellington 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