Kiama Downs vs Long Point
Property investment comparison - Kiama Downs, NSW 2533 vs Long Point, NSW 2564
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Kiama Downs wins 1, Long Point wins 2. 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 | Kiama Downs | Long Point |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $1.4M | $1.4M |
| Median unit price | - | $640K |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 3.20% | 2.63% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | 4.35% | 4.60% |
| 1-year house growth | -2.2%estimate | - |
| 3-year house growth | - | - |
| Vacancy rate | 2.8% | 0.8% |
| Population | 5,087 | 237 |
Kiama Downs vs Long Point: what the numbers say
Houses cost about the same in both suburbs: the median house price is $1.4M in Kiama Downs and $1.4M in Long Point.
On cash flow, Kiama Downs leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 3.20%, compared with 2.63% in Long Point, a gap of 0.57 percentage points.
Rental vacancy is 0.8% in Long Point and 2.8% in Kiama Downs, so landlords in Long Point face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.
Kiama Downs is the bigger suburb, with a population of 5,087 against 237, roughly 21 times the size of Long Point; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Kiama Downs for rental income, Long Point 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