Skip to main content

North Macksville vs Pacific Palms

Property investment comparison - North Macksville, NSW 2447 vs Pacific Palms, NSW 2428

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: North Macksville wins 1, Pacific Palms 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.

MetricNorth MacksvillePacific Palms
Median house price$820K$820K
Median unit price-$545K
Gross rental yield (houses)3.79%4.28%
Gross rental yield (units)5.18%5.32%
1-year house growth+7.8%estimate+3.1%
3-year house growth-+54.9%
Vacancy rate2.6%1.0%
Population66925,187

North Macksville vs Pacific Palms: what the numbers say

Houses cost about the same in both suburbs: the median house price is $820K in North Macksville and $820K in Pacific Palms.

On cash flow, Pacific Palms leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 4.28%, compared with 3.79% in North Macksville, a gap of 0.49 percentage points.

Over the past year house prices moved +7.8% in North Macksville (an estimate) and +3.1% in Pacific Palms, so recent momentum favours North Macksville, although both suburbs recorded growth.

Rental vacancy is 1.0% in Pacific Palms and 2.6% in North Macksville, so landlords in Pacific Palms face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.

Pacific Palms is the bigger suburb, with a population of 25,187 against 669, roughly 38 times the size of North Macksville; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Pacific Palms for rental income, North Macksville for recent price momentum, Pacific Palms 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