Kearns vs Teralba
Property investment comparison - Kearns, NSW 2558 vs Teralba, NSW 2284
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Kearns wins 1, Teralba 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.
| Metric | Kearns | Teralba |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $1.1M | $1.1M |
| Median unit price | - | - |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 3.29% | - |
| Gross rental yield (units) | 3.56% | 4.94% |
| 1-year house growth | +7.0% | +19.9% |
| 3-year house growth | +30.9% | +32.8% |
| Vacancy rate | 1.4% | 2.0% |
| Population | 2,693 | 2,654 |
Kearns vs Teralba: what the numbers say
Houses cost about the same in both suburbs: the median house price is $1.1M in Kearns and $1.1M in Teralba.
Over the past year house prices moved +7.0% in Kearns and +19.9% in Teralba, so recent momentum favours Teralba, although both suburbs recorded growth.
Looking back three years, Kearns houses are +30.9% and Teralba houses +32.8%, so Teralba has compounded faster than Kearns over the longer window.
Rental vacancy is 1.4% in Kearns and 2.0% in Teralba, so landlords in Kearns face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.
Kearns is the bigger suburb, with a population of 2,693 against 2,654, larger than Teralba; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Teralba for recent price momentum, Kearns 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