Skip to main content

North Macksville vs San Remo

Property investment comparison - North Macksville, NSW 2447 vs San Remo, NSW 2262

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: North Macksville wins 1, San Remo 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 MacksvilleSan Remo
Median house price$820K$810K
Median unit price--
Gross rental yield (houses)3.79%-
Gross rental yield (units)5.18%3.74%
1-year house growth+7.8%estimate+8.7%
3-year house growth-+23.7%
Vacancy rate2.6%0.6%
Population6694,434

North Macksville vs San Remo: what the numbers say

The median house price is $820K in North Macksville and $810K in San Remo, so San Remo is the cheaper entry point, with North Macksville houses about 1% dearer.

Over the past year house prices moved +7.8% in North Macksville (an estimate) and +8.7% in San Remo, so recent momentum favours San Remo, although both suburbs recorded growth.

Rental vacancy is 0.6% in San Remo and 2.6% in North Macksville, so landlords in San Remo face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.

San Remo is the bigger suburb, with a population of 4,434 against 669, roughly 7 times the size of North Macksville; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: San Remo for a lower purchase price, San Remo for recent price momentum, San Remo 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