Glen Alpine vs Saratoga
Property investment comparison - Glen Alpine, NSW 2560 vs Saratoga, NSW 2251
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Glen Alpine wins 3, Saratoga wins 1. 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 | Glen Alpine | Saratoga |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $1.4M | $1.4M |
| Median unit price | $525K | - |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 3.00% | - |
| Gross rental yield (units) | 5.33% | 3.55% |
| 1-year house growth | +6.9% | +5.4% |
| 3-year house growth | +19.4% | +21.2% |
| Vacancy rate | 2.4% | 4.6% |
| Population | 4,429 | 3,982 |
Glen Alpine vs Saratoga: what the numbers say
Houses cost about the same in both suburbs: the median house price is $1.4M in Glen Alpine and $1.4M in Saratoga.
Over the past year house prices moved +6.9% in Glen Alpine and +5.4% in Saratoga, so recent momentum favours Glen Alpine, although both suburbs recorded growth.
Looking back three years, Glen Alpine houses are +19.4% and Saratoga houses +21.2%, so Saratoga has compounded faster than Glen Alpine over the longer window.
Rental vacancy is 2.4% in Glen Alpine and 4.6% in Saratoga, so landlords in Glen Alpine face less competition for tenants.
Glen Alpine is the bigger suburb, with a population of 4,429 against 3,982, larger than Saratoga; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Glen Alpine for recent price momentum, Glen Alpine 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