Skip to main content

Haberfield vs Newport

Property investment comparison - Haberfield, NSW 2045 vs Newport, NSW 2106

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Haberfield wins 4, Newport 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.

MetricHaberfieldNewport
Median house price$3.0M$3.1M
Median unit price-$1.4M
Gross rental yield (houses)2.10%2.37%
Gross rental yield (units)3.33%3.19%
1-year house growth+1.0%estimate+0.7%estimate
3-year house growth--
Vacancy rate1.1%1.5%
Population6,4809,659

Haberfield vs Newport: what the numbers say

The median house price is $3.0M in Haberfield and $3.1M in Newport, so Haberfield is the cheaper entry point, with Newport houses about 1% dearer.

On cash flow, Newport leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 2.37%, compared with 2.10% in Haberfield, a gap of 0.27 percentage points.

Over the past year house prices moved +1.0% in Haberfield (an estimate) and +0.7% in Newport (an estimate), so recent momentum favours Haberfield, although both suburbs recorded growth.

Rental vacancy is 1.1% in Haberfield and 1.5% in Newport, so landlords in Haberfield face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.

Newport is the bigger suburb, with a population of 9,659 against 6,480, larger than Haberfield; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Newport for rental income, Haberfield for a lower purchase price, Haberfield for recent price momentum, Haberfield 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