Skip to main content

Oaklands Park vs Sturt

Property investment comparison - Oaklands Park, SA 5046 vs Sturt, SA 5047

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Oaklands Park wins 0, Sturt wins 4. 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.

MetricOaklands ParkSturt
Median house price$930K$920K
Median unit price$675K-
Gross rental yield (houses)3.40%-
Gross rental yield (units)--
1-year house growth+10.2%+11.1%
3-year house growth+30.5%+39.0%
Vacancy rate0.6%0.2%
Population3,9482,787

Oaklands Park vs Sturt: what the numbers say

The median house price is $930K in Oaklands Park and $920K in Sturt, so Sturt is the cheaper entry point, with Oaklands Park houses about 1% dearer.

Over the past year house prices moved +10.2% in Oaklands Park and +11.1% in Sturt, so recent momentum favours Sturt, although both suburbs recorded growth.

Looking back three years, Oaklands Park houses are +30.5% and Sturt houses +39.0%, so Sturt has compounded faster than Oaklands Park over the longer window.

Rental vacancy is 0.2% in Sturt and 0.6% in Oaklands Park, so landlords in Sturt face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.

Oaklands Park is the bigger suburb, with a population of 3,948 against 2,787, larger than Sturt; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Sturt for a lower purchase price, Sturt for recent price momentum, Sturt 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