Skip to main content

Greta vs Windermere Park

Property investment comparison - Greta, NSW 2334 vs Windermere Park, NSW 2264

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Greta wins 3, Windermere Park 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.

MetricGretaWindermere Park
Median house price$840K$840K
Median unit price-$590K
Gross rental yield (houses)4.04%3.82%
Gross rental yield (units)4.90%5.37%
1-year house growth+20.6%+11.2%
3-year house growth+30.3%+17.7%
Vacancy rate3.2%2.4%
Population3,349722

Greta vs Windermere Park: what the numbers say

Houses cost about the same in both suburbs: the median house price is $840K in Greta and $840K in Windermere Park.

On cash flow, Greta leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 4.04%, compared with 3.82% in Windermere Park, a gap of 0.22 percentage points.

Over the past year house prices moved +20.6% in Greta and +11.2% in Windermere Park, so recent momentum favours Greta, although both suburbs recorded growth.

Looking back three years, Greta houses are +30.3% and Windermere Park houses +17.7%, so Greta has compounded faster than Windermere Park over the longer window.

Rental vacancy is 2.4% in Windermere Park and 3.2% in Greta, so landlords in Windermere Park face less competition for tenants.

Greta is the bigger suburb, with a population of 3,349 against 722, roughly 4.6 times the size of Windermere Park; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Greta for rental income, Greta for recent price momentum, Windermere Park 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