Skip to main content

Kiama Downs vs Quakers Hill

Property investment comparison - Kiama Downs, NSW 2533 vs Quakers Hill, NSW 2763

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Kiama Downs wins 1, Quakers Hill 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.

MetricKiama DownsQuakers Hill
Median house price$1.4M$1.4M
Median unit price-$900K
Gross rental yield (houses)3.20%2.63%
Gross rental yield (units)4.35%-
1-year house growth-2.2%estimate+7.3%estimate
3-year house growth--
Vacancy rate2.8%1.8%
Population5,08727,893

Kiama Downs vs Quakers Hill: 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 Quakers Hill.

On cash flow, Kiama Downs leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 3.20%, compared with 2.63% in Quakers Hill, a gap of 0.57 percentage points.

Over the past year house prices moved -2.2% in Kiama Downs (an estimate) and +7.3% in Quakers Hill (an estimate), so recent momentum favours Quakers Hill, while Kiama Downs went backwards.

Rental vacancy is 1.8% in Quakers Hill and 2.8% in Kiama Downs, so landlords in Quakers Hill face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.

Quakers Hill is the bigger suburb, with a population of 27,893 against 5,087, roughly 5 times the size of Kiama Downs; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Kiama Downs for rental income, Quakers Hill for recent price momentum, Quakers Hill 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