Skip to main content

Kilburn vs Seacombe Gardens

Property investment comparison - Kilburn, SA 5084 vs Seacombe Gardens, SA 5047

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Kilburn wins 3, Seacombe Gardens 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.

MetricKilburnSeacombe Gardens
Median house price$940K$930K
Median unit price$550K-
Gross rental yield (houses)-3.60%
Gross rental yield (units)4.63%4.05%
1-year house growth+13.7%+9.6%
3-year house growth+57.2%+51.0%
Vacancy rate0.6%0.2%
Population5,6333,373

Kilburn vs Seacombe Gardens: what the numbers say

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

Over the past year house prices moved +13.7% in Kilburn and +9.6% in Seacombe Gardens, so recent momentum favours Kilburn, although both suburbs recorded growth.

Looking back three years, Kilburn houses are +57.2% and Seacombe Gardens houses +51.0%, so Kilburn has compounded faster than Seacombe Gardens over the longer window.

Rental vacancy is 0.2% in Seacombe Gardens and 0.6% in Kilburn, so landlords in Seacombe Gardens face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.

Kilburn is the bigger suburb, with a population of 5,633 against 3,373, larger than Seacombe Gardens; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Seacombe Gardens for a lower purchase price, Kilburn for recent price momentum, Seacombe Gardens 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