Illabo vs Tumbarumba
Property investment comparison - Illabo, NSW 2590 vs Tumbarumba, NSW 2653
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Illabo wins 2, Tumbarumba 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 | Illabo | Tumbarumba |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $425K | $425K |
| Median unit price | $320K | - |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 6.80% | 5.87% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | 5.43% | 3.84% |
| 1-year house growth | - | +11.4% |
| 3-year house growth | - | +10.8% |
| Vacancy rate | 1.0% | 0.8% |
| Population | 132 | 1,915 |
Illabo vs Tumbarumba: what the numbers say
Houses cost about the same in both suburbs: the median house price is $425K in Illabo and $425K in Tumbarumba.
On cash flow, Illabo leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 6.80%, compared with 5.87% in Tumbarumba, a gap of 0.93 percentage points.
Rental vacancy is 0.8% in Tumbarumba and 1.0% in Illabo, so landlords in Tumbarumba face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.
Tumbarumba is the bigger suburb, with a population of 1,915 against 132, roughly 15 times the size of Illabo; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Illabo for rental income, Tumbarumba 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