Long Point vs Macksville
Property investment comparison - Long Point, NSW 2800 vs Macksville, NSW 2447
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Long Point wins 3, Macksville 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.
| Metric | Long Point | Macksville |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $690K | $695K |
| Median unit price | $435K | - |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 4.85% | 4.30% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | 5.93% | 3.94% |
| 1-year house growth | - | +8.0% |
| 3-year house growth | - | +19.3% |
| Vacancy rate | 3.6% | 0.4% |
| Population | 237 | 2,782 |
Long Point vs Macksville: what the numbers say
The median house price is $690K in Long Point and $695K in Macksville, so Long Point is the cheaper entry point, with Macksville houses about 1% dearer.
On cash flow, Long Point leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 4.85%, compared with 4.30% in Macksville, a gap of 0.55 percentage points.
Rental vacancy is 0.4% in Macksville and 3.6% in Long Point, so landlords in Macksville face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.
Macksville is the bigger suburb, with a population of 2,782 against 237, roughly 12 times the size of Long Point; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Long Point for rental income, Long Point for a lower purchase price, Macksville 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