Gresford vs Lavington
Property investment comparison - Gresford, NSW 2311 vs Lavington, NSW 2641
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Gresford wins 0, Lavington 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.
| Metric | Gresford | Lavington |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $625K | $625K |
| Median unit price | - | $395K |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 3.08% | 4.30% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | - | 5.20% |
| 1-year house growth | - | +16.2% |
| 3-year house growth | - | +32.5% |
| Vacancy rate | 4.1% | 1.8% |
| Population | 240 | 13,073 |
Gresford vs Lavington: what the numbers say
Houses cost about the same in both suburbs: the median house price is $625K in Gresford and $625K in Lavington.
On cash flow, Lavington leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 4.30%, compared with 3.08% in Gresford, a gap of 1.22 percentage points.
Rental vacancy is 1.8% in Lavington and 4.1% in Gresford, so landlords in Lavington face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.
Lavington is the bigger suburb, with a population of 13,073 against 240, roughly 54 times the size of Gresford; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Lavington for rental income, Lavington 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