Eden Hills vs Pasadena
Property investment comparison - Eden Hills, SA 5050 vs Pasadena, SA 5042
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Eden Hills wins 1, Pasadena 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 | Eden Hills | Pasadena |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $1.2M | $1.2M |
| Median unit price | - | - |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | - | 3.10% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | 3.12% | 4.67% |
| 1-year house growth | +20.1%estimate | +12.2%estimate |
| 3-year house growth | - | - |
| Vacancy rate | 0.8% | 0.5% |
| Population | 3,020 | 3,073 |
Eden Hills vs Pasadena: what the numbers say
The median house price is $1.2M in Eden Hills and $1.2M in Pasadena, so Pasadena is the cheaper entry point, with Eden Hills houses about 3% dearer.
Over the past year house prices moved +20.1% in Eden Hills (an estimate) and +12.2% in Pasadena (an estimate), so recent momentum favours Eden Hills, although both suburbs recorded growth.
Rental vacancy is 0.5% in Pasadena and 0.8% in Eden Hills, so landlords in Pasadena face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.
Pasadena is the bigger suburb, with a population of 3,073 against 3,020, larger than Eden Hills; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Pasadena for a lower purchase price, Eden Hills for recent price momentum, Pasadena 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