Skip to main content

Kilburn vs Oaklands Park

Property investment comparison - Kilburn, SA 5084 vs Oaklands Park, SA 5046

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Kilburn wins 4, Oaklands Park 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.

MetricKilburnOaklands Park
Median house price$940K$930K
Median unit price$550K$675K
Gross rental yield (houses)-3.40%
Gross rental yield (units)4.63%-
1-year house growth+13.7%+10.2%
3-year house growth+57.2%+30.5%
Vacancy rate0.6%0.6%
Population5,6333,948

Kilburn vs Oaklands Park: what the numbers say

The median house price is $940K in Kilburn and $930K in Oaklands Park, so Oaklands Park is the cheaper entry point, with Kilburn houses about 1% dearer.

For units, Kilburn sits at a median of $550K against $675K in Oaklands Park, which makes Kilburn the more affordable unit market and Oaklands Park the pricier one.

Over the past year house prices moved +13.7% in Kilburn and +10.2% in Oaklands Park, so recent momentum favours Kilburn, although both suburbs recorded growth.

Looking back three years, Kilburn houses are +57.2% and Oaklands Park houses +30.5%, so Kilburn has compounded faster than Oaklands Park over the longer window.

Rental vacancy is the same in both, at 0.6%.

Kilburn is the bigger suburb, with a population of 5,633 against 3,948, larger than Oaklands Park; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Oaklands Park for a lower purchase price, Kilburn for recent price momentum. 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
Kilburn vs Oaklands Park: Suburb Comparison 2026