Hawks Nest vs Lurnea
Property investment comparison - Hawks Nest, NSW 2324 vs Lurnea, NSW 2170
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Hawks Nest wins 0, Lurnea 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.
| Metric | Hawks Nest | Lurnea |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $1.2M | $1.2M |
| Median unit price | - | $750K |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 2.69% | 3.02% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | 3.88% | - |
| 1-year house growth | - | +10.6%estimate |
| 3-year house growth | +34.5% | - |
| Vacancy rate | 1.2% | 0.8% |
| Population | 1,413 | 10,057 |
Hawks Nest vs Lurnea: what the numbers say
Houses cost about the same in both suburbs: the median house price is $1.2M in Hawks Nest and $1.2M in Lurnea.
On cash flow, Lurnea leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 3.02%, compared with 2.69% in Hawks Nest, a gap of 0.33 percentage points.
Rental vacancy is 0.8% in Lurnea and 1.2% in Hawks Nest, so landlords in Lurnea face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.
Lurnea is the bigger suburb, with a population of 10,057 against 1,413, roughly 7 times the size of Hawks Nest; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Lurnea for rental income, Lurnea 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