Skip to main content

Haberfield vs Port Hacking

Property investment comparison - Haberfield, NSW 2045 vs Port Hacking, NSW 2229

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Haberfield wins 3, Port Hacking 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.

MetricHaberfieldPort Hacking
Median house price$3.0M$3.0M
Median unit price--
Gross rental yield (houses)2.10%2.56%
Gross rental yield (units)3.33%2.05%
1-year house growth+1.0%estimate-7.4%
3-year house growth-+7.6%
Vacancy rate1.1%6.4%
Population6,4801,210

Haberfield vs Port Hacking: what the numbers say

The median house price is $3.0M in Haberfield and $3.0M in Port Hacking, so Port Hacking is the cheaper entry point.

On cash flow, Port Hacking leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 2.56%, compared with 2.10% in Haberfield, a gap of 0.46 percentage points.

Over the past year house prices moved +1.0% in Haberfield (an estimate) and -7.4% in Port Hacking, so recent momentum favours Haberfield, while Port Hacking went backwards.

Rental vacancy is 1.1% in Haberfield and 6.4% in Port Hacking, so landlords in Haberfield face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.

Haberfield is the bigger suburb, with a population of 6,480 against 1,210, roughly 5 times the size of Port Hacking; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Port Hacking for rental income, Port Hacking 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