Skip to main content

Kurralta Park vs Macclesfield

Property investment comparison - Kurralta Park, SA 5037 vs Macclesfield, SA 5153

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Kurralta Park wins 3, Macclesfield 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.

MetricKurralta ParkMacclesfield
Median house price$1.1M$1.1M
Median unit price$540K$750K
Gross rental yield (houses)3.30%3.40%
Gross rental yield (units)4.85%3.00%
1-year house growth-+10.6%
3-year house growth-+44.9%
Vacancy rate1.1%2.1%
Population3,1391,413

Kurralta Park vs Macclesfield: what the numbers say

Houses cost about the same in both suburbs: the median house price is $1.1M in Kurralta Park and $1.1M in Macclesfield.

For units, Kurralta Park sits at a median of $540K against $750K in Macclesfield, which makes Kurralta Park the more affordable unit market and Macclesfield the pricier one.

On cash flow, Macclesfield leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 3.40%, compared with 3.30% in Kurralta Park, a gap of 0.10 percentage points.

Rental vacancy is 1.1% in Kurralta Park and 2.1% in Macclesfield, so landlords in Kurralta Park face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.

Kurralta Park is the bigger suburb, with a population of 3,139 against 1,413, roughly 2.2 times the size of Macclesfield; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Macclesfield for rental income, Kurralta Park 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