Cougal vs Mount Austin
Property investment comparison - Cougal, NSW 2474 vs Mount Austin, NSW 2650
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Cougal wins 0, Mount Austin 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 | Cougal | Mount Austin |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $545K | $545K |
| Median unit price | - | - |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 3.94% | 4.80% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | - | 4.70% |
| 1-year house growth | - | +20.6% |
| 3-year house growth | - | +45.6% |
| Vacancy rate | 10.3% | 1.9% |
| Population | 30 | 4,035 |
Cougal vs Mount Austin: what the numbers say
Houses cost about the same in both suburbs: the median house price is $545K in Cougal and $545K in Mount Austin.
On cash flow, Mount Austin leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 4.80%, compared with 3.94% in Cougal, a gap of 0.86 percentage points.
Rental vacancy is 1.9% in Mount Austin and 10.3% in Cougal, so landlords in Mount Austin face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.
Mount Austin is the bigger suburb, with a population of 4,035 against 30, roughly 135 times the size of Cougal; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Mount Austin for rental income, Mount Austin 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