Skip to main content

Glenning Valley vs Lurnea

Property investment comparison - Glenning Valley, NSW 2261 vs Lurnea, NSW 2170

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Glenning Valley wins 1, Lurnea 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.

MetricGlenning ValleyLurnea
Median house price$1.2M$1.2M
Median unit price-$750K
Gross rental yield (houses)4.10%3.02%
Gross rental yield (units)4.43%-
1-year house growth+4.9%estimate+10.6%estimate
3-year house growth--
Vacancy rate1.5%0.8%
Population2,02310,057

Glenning Valley vs Lurnea: what the numbers say

Houses cost about the same in both suburbs: the median house price is $1.2M in Glenning Valley and $1.2M in Lurnea.

On cash flow, Glenning Valley leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 4.10%, compared with 3.02% in Lurnea, a gap of 1.08 percentage points.

Over the past year house prices moved +4.9% in Glenning Valley (an estimate) and +10.6% in Lurnea (an estimate), so recent momentum favours Lurnea, although both suburbs recorded growth.

Rental vacancy is 0.8% in Lurnea and 1.5% in Glenning Valley, so landlords in Lurnea face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.

Lurnea is the bigger suburb, with a population of 10,057 against 2,023, roughly 5.0 times the size of Glenning Valley; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Glenning Valley for rental income, Lurnea for recent price momentum, Lurnea 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
Glenning Valley vs Lurnea: Suburb Comparison 2026