Skip to main content

Macksville vs Raglan

Property investment comparison - Macksville, NSW 2447 vs Raglan, NSW 2795

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Macksville wins 2, Raglan wins 3. 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.

MetricMacksvilleRaglan
Median house price$695K$700K
Median unit price-$455K
Gross rental yield (houses)4.30%4.40%
Gross rental yield (units)3.94%5.63%
1-year house growth+8.0%+8.0%
3-year house growth+19.3%+27.6%
Vacancy rate0.4%1.4%
Population2,7821,272

Macksville vs Raglan: what the numbers say

The median house price is $695K in Macksville and $700K in Raglan, so Macksville is the cheaper entry point, with Raglan houses about 1% dearer.

On cash flow, Raglan leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 4.40%, compared with 4.30% in Macksville, a gap of 0.10 percentage points.

Over the past year house prices moved +8.0% in both suburbs.

Looking back three years, Macksville houses are +19.3% and Raglan houses +27.6%, so Raglan has compounded faster than Macksville over the longer window.

Rental vacancy is 0.4% in Macksville and 1.4% in Raglan, 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 1,272, roughly 2.2 times the size of Raglan; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Raglan for rental income, Macksville 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

Compare any 2-4 Australian suburbs

Build your own multi-suburb comparison with the full interactive tool.

Open interactive comparison
Macksville vs Raglan: Property Investment Comparison (2026)