Skip to main content

Cudgen vs Erskine Park

Property investment comparison - Cudgen, NSW 2487 vs Erskine Park, NSW 2759

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Cudgen wins 2, Erskine Park 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.

MetricCudgenErskine Park
Median house price$1.3M$1.3M
Median unit price-$895K
Gross rental yield (houses)4.92%2.75%
Gross rental yield (units)-3.62%
1-year house growth+7.2%estimate+10.7%estimate
3-year house growth--
Vacancy rate3.4%1.1%
Population9526,486

Cudgen vs Erskine Park: what the numbers say

The median house price is $1.3M in Cudgen and $1.3M in Erskine Park, so Cudgen is the cheaper entry point.

On cash flow, Cudgen leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 4.92%, compared with 2.75% in Erskine Park, a gap of 2.17 percentage points.

Over the past year house prices moved +7.2% in Cudgen (an estimate) and +10.7% in Erskine Park (an estimate), so recent momentum favours Erskine Park, although both suburbs recorded growth.

Rental vacancy is 1.1% in Erskine Park and 3.4% in Cudgen, so landlords in Erskine Park face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.

Erskine Park is the bigger suburb, with a population of 6,486 against 952, roughly 7 times the size of Cudgen; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Cudgen for rental income, Cudgen for a lower purchase price, Erskine Park for recent price momentum, Erskine Park for the tighter rental market. Which matters more depends on whether the investor is buying for cash flow, capital growth or affordability.

Keep exploring

Compare any 2-4 Australian suburbs

Build your own multi-suburb comparison with the full interactive tool.

Open interactive comparison