Lakelands vs Seven Hills
Property investment comparison - Lakelands, NSW 2282 vs Seven Hills, NSW 2147
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Lakelands wins 1, Seven Hills 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 | Lakelands | Seven Hills |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $1.3M | $1.3M |
| Median unit price | - | $725K |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | - | 2.60% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | 4.33% | 4.79% |
| 1-year house growth | +8.1%estimate | +4.1%estimate |
| 3-year house growth | - | - |
| Vacancy rate | 1.7% | 1.6% |
| Population | 1,445 | 20,095 |
Lakelands vs Seven Hills: what the numbers say
Houses cost about the same in both suburbs: the median house price is $1.3M in Lakelands and $1.3M in Seven Hills.
Over the past year house prices moved +8.1% in Lakelands (an estimate) and +4.1% in Seven Hills (an estimate), so recent momentum favours Lakelands, although both suburbs recorded growth.
Rental vacancy is 1.6% in Seven Hills and 1.7% in Lakelands, so landlords in Seven Hills face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.
Seven Hills is the bigger suburb, with a population of 20,095 against 1,445, roughly 14 times the size of Lakelands; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Lakelands for recent price momentum, Seven Hills 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