Skip to main content

Kawana vs New Auckland

Property investment comparison - Kawana, QLD 4701 vs New Auckland, QLD 4680

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Kawana wins 4, New Auckland wins 0. 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.

MetricKawanaNew Auckland
Median house price$650K$650K
Median unit price-$375K
Gross rental yield (houses)4.76%4.69%
Gross rental yield (units)-5.97%
1-year house growth+17.9%+14.4%
3-year house growth+76.9%+61.3%
Vacancy rate0.7%2.1%
Population4,4345,266

Kawana vs New Auckland: what the numbers say

Houses cost about the same in both suburbs: the median house price is $650K in Kawana and $650K in New Auckland.

On cash flow, Kawana leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 4.76%, compared with 4.69% in New Auckland, a gap of 0.07 percentage points.

Over the past year house prices moved +17.9% in Kawana and +14.4% in New Auckland, so recent momentum favours Kawana, although both suburbs recorded growth.

Looking back three years, Kawana houses are +76.9% and New Auckland houses +61.3%, so Kawana has compounded faster than New Auckland over the longer window.

Rental vacancy is 0.7% in Kawana and 2.1% in New Auckland, so landlords in Kawana face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.

New Auckland is the bigger suburb, with a population of 5,266 against 4,434, larger than Kawana; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Kawana for rental income, Kawana for recent price momentum, Kawana 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
Kawana vs New Auckland: Suburb Comparison 2026