Croom vs Lake Haven
Property investment comparison - Croom, NSW 2527 vs Lake Haven, NSW 2263
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Croom wins 2, Lake Haven wins 0. 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 | Croom | Lake Haven |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $865K | $865K |
| Median unit price | $725K | - |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 4.74% | 3.93% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | 5.61% | - |
| 1-year house growth | - | +8.4% |
| 3-year house growth | - | +23.1% |
| Vacancy rate | 0.6% | 1.6% |
| Population | 112 | 3,529 |
Croom vs Lake Haven: what the numbers say
Houses cost about the same in both suburbs: the median house price is $865K in Croom and $865K in Lake Haven.
On cash flow, Croom leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 4.74%, compared with 3.93% in Lake Haven, a gap of 0.81 percentage points.
Rental vacancy is 0.6% in Croom and 1.6% in Lake Haven, so landlords in Croom face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.
Lake Haven is the bigger suburb, with a population of 3,529 against 112, roughly 32 times the size of Croom; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Croom for rental income, Croom 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