Skip to main content

Cudgen vs Umina

Property investment comparison - Cudgen, NSW 2487 vs Umina, NSW 2257

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Cudgen wins 1, Umina 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.

MetricCudgenUmina
Median house price$1.3M$1.3M
Median unit price-$880K
Gross rental yield (houses)4.92%2.65%
Gross rental yield (units)-3.23%
1-year house growth+7.2%estimate+10.7%
3-year house growth--
Vacancy rate3.4%1.5%
Population95222,140

Cudgen vs Umina: what the numbers say

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

On cash flow, Cudgen leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 4.92%, compared with 2.65% in Umina, a gap of 2.27 percentage points.

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

Rental vacancy is 1.5% in Umina and 3.4% in Cudgen, so landlords in Umina face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.

Umina is the bigger suburb, with a population of 22,140 against 952, roughly 23 times the size of Cudgen; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Cudgen for rental income, Umina for a lower purchase price, Umina for recent price momentum, Umina 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