Greta vs Toronto
Property investment comparison - Greta, NSW 2334 vs Toronto, NSW 2283
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Greta wins 3, Toronto 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 | Greta | Toronto |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $840K | $840K |
| Median unit price | - | $760K |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 4.04% | - |
| Gross rental yield (units) | 4.90% | 3.90% |
| 1-year house growth | +20.6% | +11.2% |
| 3-year house growth | +30.3% | +23.0% |
| Vacancy rate | 3.2% | 0.5% |
| Population | 3,349 | 5,973 |
Greta vs Toronto: what the numbers say
Houses cost about the same in both suburbs: the median house price is $840K in Greta and $840K in Toronto.
Over the past year house prices moved +20.6% in Greta and +11.2% in Toronto, so recent momentum favours Greta, although both suburbs recorded growth.
Looking back three years, Greta houses are +30.3% and Toronto houses +23.0%, so Greta has compounded faster than Toronto over the longer window.
Rental vacancy is 0.5% in Toronto and 3.2% in Greta, so landlords in Toronto face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.
Toronto is the bigger suburb, with a population of 5,973 against 3,349, larger than Greta; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Greta for recent price momentum, Toronto 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