Skip to main content

Guildford vs Saratoga

Property investment comparison - Guildford, NSW 2161 vs Saratoga, NSW 2251

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Guildford wins 3, Saratoga wins 0. 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.

MetricGuildfordSaratoga
Median house price$1.4M$1.4M
Median unit price$495K-
Gross rental yield (houses)2.80%-
Gross rental yield (units)-3.55%
1-year house growth+9.8%+5.4%
3-year house growth+22.1%+21.2%
Vacancy rate1.6%4.6%
Population24,0913,982

Guildford vs Saratoga: what the numbers say

Houses cost about the same in both suburbs: the median house price is $1.4M in Guildford and $1.4M in Saratoga.

Over the past year house prices moved +9.8% in Guildford and +5.4% in Saratoga, so recent momentum favours Guildford, although both suburbs recorded growth.

Looking back three years, Guildford houses are +22.1% and Saratoga houses +21.2%, so Guildford has compounded faster than Saratoga over the longer window.

Rental vacancy is 1.6% in Guildford and 4.6% in Saratoga, so landlords in Guildford face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.

Guildford is the bigger suburb, with a population of 24,091 against 3,982, roughly 6 times the size of Saratoga; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Guildford for recent price momentum, Guildford 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