Skip to main content

Glenfield vs Lansvale

Property investment comparison - Glenfield, NSW 2167 vs Lansvale, NSW 2166

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Glenfield wins 3, Lansvale 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.

MetricGlenfieldLansvale
Median house price$1.2M$1.2M
Median unit price$790K$2.3M
Gross rental yield (houses)3.06%-
Gross rental yield (units)4.20%-
1-year house growth+8.5%+2.4%
3-year house growth+22.5%+18.8%
Vacancy rate1.5%0.2%
Population10,5362,595

Glenfield vs Lansvale: what the numbers say

Houses cost about the same in both suburbs: the median house price is $1.2M in Glenfield and $1.2M in Lansvale.

For units, Glenfield sits at a median of $790K against $2.3M in Lansvale, which makes Glenfield the more affordable unit market and Lansvale the pricier one.

Over the past year house prices moved +8.5% in Glenfield and +2.4% in Lansvale, so recent momentum favours Glenfield, although both suburbs recorded growth.

Looking back three years, Glenfield houses are +22.5% and Lansvale houses +18.8%, so Glenfield has compounded faster than Lansvale over the longer window.

Rental vacancy is 0.2% in Lansvale and 1.5% in Glenfield, so landlords in Lansvale face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.

Glenfield is the bigger suburb, with a population of 10,536 against 2,595, roughly 4.1 times the size of Lansvale; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Glenfield for recent price momentum, Lansvale 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