Limekilns vs Macksville
Property investment comparison - Limekilns, NSW 2850 vs Macksville, NSW 2447
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Limekilns wins 2, Macksville wins 0. 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 | Limekilns | Macksville |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $695K | $695K |
| Median unit price | $520K | - |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 5.27% | 4.30% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | 5.77% | 3.94% |
| 1-year house growth | - | +8.0% |
| 3-year house growth | - | +19.3% |
| Vacancy rate | - | 0.4% |
| Population | 115 | 2,782 |
Limekilns vs Macksville: what the numbers say
Houses cost about the same in both suburbs: the median house price is $695K in Limekilns and $695K in Macksville.
On cash flow, Limekilns leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 5.27%, compared with 4.30% in Macksville, a gap of 0.97 percentage points.
Macksville is the bigger suburb, with a population of 2,782 against 115, roughly 24 times the size of Limekilns; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Limekilns for rental income. 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