Skip to main content

Lurnea vs Marsden Park

Property investment comparison - Lurnea, NSW 2170 vs Marsden Park, NSW 2765

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Lurnea wins 2, Marsden Park 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.

MetricLurneaMarsden Park
Median house price$1.2M$1.2M
Median unit price$750K-
Gross rental yield (houses)3.02%3.58%
Gross rental yield (units)-4.21%
1-year house growth+10.6%estimate+3.0%estimate
3-year house growth--
Vacancy rate0.8%4.3%
Population10,05714,610

Lurnea vs Marsden Park: what the numbers say

Houses cost about the same in both suburbs: the median house price is $1.2M in Lurnea and $1.2M in Marsden Park.

On cash flow, Marsden Park leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 3.58%, compared with 3.02% in Lurnea, a gap of 0.56 percentage points.

Over the past year house prices moved +10.6% in Lurnea (an estimate) and +3.0% in Marsden Park (an estimate), so recent momentum favours Lurnea, although both suburbs recorded growth.

Rental vacancy is 0.8% in Lurnea and 4.3% in Marsden Park, so landlords in Lurnea face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.

Marsden Park is the bigger suburb, with a population of 14,610 against 10,057, larger than Lurnea; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Marsden Park for rental income, Lurnea for recent price momentum, Lurnea 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