Skip to main content

Mawson Lakes vs McCracken

Property investment comparison - Mawson Lakes, SA 5095 vs McCracken, SA 5211

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Mawson Lakes wins 2, McCracken 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.

MetricMawson LakesMcCracken
Median house price$875K$850K
Median unit price$600K$375K
Gross rental yield (houses)-3.77%
Gross rental yield (units)4.85%3.68%
1-year house growth+12.6%+12.2%estimate
3-year house growth+35.4%-
Vacancy rate1.1%0.9%
Population13,7942,076

Mawson Lakes vs McCracken: what the numbers say

The median house price is $875K in Mawson Lakes and $850K in McCracken, so McCracken is the cheaper entry point, with Mawson Lakes houses about 3% dearer.

For units, Mawson Lakes sits at a median of $600K against $375K in McCracken, which makes McCracken the more affordable unit market and Mawson Lakes the pricier one.

Over the past year house prices moved +12.6% in Mawson Lakes and +12.2% in McCracken (an estimate), so recent momentum favours Mawson Lakes, although both suburbs recorded growth.

Rental vacancy is 0.9% in McCracken and 1.1% in Mawson Lakes, so landlords in McCracken face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.

Mawson Lakes is the bigger suburb, with a population of 13,794 against 2,076, roughly 7 times the size of McCracken; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: McCracken for a lower purchase price, Mawson Lakes for recent price momentum, McCracken 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