Skip to main content

Hurstville vs Wombarra

Property investment comparison - Hurstville, NSW 2220 vs Wombarra, NSW 2515

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Hurstville wins 3, Wombarra wins 3. 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.

MetricHurstvilleWombarra
Median house price$2.2M$2.2M
Median unit price$780K$1.1M
Gross rental yield (houses)2.00%2.47%
Gross rental yield (units)4.98%4.54%
1-year house growth+4.2%+0.2%estimate
3-year house growth+23.8%-
Vacancy rate1.3%1.3%
Population31,162944

Hurstville vs Wombarra: what the numbers say

The median house price is $2.2M in Hurstville and $2.2M in Wombarra, so Wombarra is the cheaper entry point, with Hurstville houses about 1% dearer.

For units, Hurstville sits at a median of $780K against $1.1M in Wombarra, which makes Hurstville the more affordable unit market and Wombarra the pricier one.

On cash flow, Wombarra leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 2.47%, compared with 2.00% in Hurstville, a gap of 0.47 percentage points.

Over the past year house prices moved +4.2% in Hurstville and +0.2% in Wombarra (an estimate), so recent momentum favours Hurstville, although both suburbs recorded growth.

Rental vacancy is the same in both, at 1.3%.

Hurstville is the bigger suburb, with a population of 31,162 against 944, roughly 33 times the size of Wombarra; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Wombarra for rental income, Wombarra for a lower purchase price, Hurstville for recent price momentum. 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