Huntingdon vs Woodberry
Property investment comparison - Huntingdon, NSW 2446 vs Woodberry, NSW 2322
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Huntingdon wins 2, Woodberry 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.
| Metric | Huntingdon | Woodberry |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $710K | $710K |
| Median unit price | $510K | - |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 4.99% | 4.40% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | 4.70% | 7.24% |
| 1-year house growth | - | +15.7% |
| 3-year house growth | - | +37.3% |
| Vacancy rate | 1.5% | 1.9% |
| Population | 86 | 3,024 |
Huntingdon vs Woodberry: what the numbers say
Houses cost about the same in both suburbs: the median house price is $710K in Huntingdon and $710K in Woodberry.
On cash flow, Huntingdon leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 4.99%, compared with 4.40% in Woodberry, a gap of 0.59 percentage points.
Rental vacancy is 1.5% in Huntingdon and 1.9% in Woodberry, so landlords in Huntingdon face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.
Woodberry is the bigger suburb, with a population of 3,024 against 86, roughly 35 times the size of Huntingdon; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Huntingdon for rental income, Huntingdon 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