Parkes vs Paynes Crossing
Property investment comparison - Parkes, NSW 2870 vs Paynes Crossing, NSW 2325
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Parkes wins 2, Paynes Crossing wins 0. 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.
| Metric | Parkes | Paynes Crossing |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $485K | $490K |
| Median unit price | - | $465K |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 4.80% | - |
| Gross rental yield (units) | 4.02% | - |
| 1-year house growth | +9.2% | - |
| 3-year house growth | -1.0% | - |
| Vacancy rate | 2.8% | 7.7% |
| Population | 11,324 | 50 |
Parkes vs Paynes Crossing: what the numbers say
The median house price is $485K in Parkes and $490K in Paynes Crossing, so Parkes is the cheaper entry point, with Paynes Crossing houses about 1% dearer.
Rental vacancy is 2.8% in Parkes and 7.7% in Paynes Crossing, so landlords in Parkes face less competition for tenants.
Parkes is the bigger suburb, with a population of 11,324 against 50, roughly 226 times the size of Paynes Crossing; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Parkes for a lower purchase price, Parkes for the tighter rental market. Which matters more depends on whether the investor is buying for cash flow, capital growth or affordability.
Full profile
Paynes Crossing, NSW 2325
Open Paynes Crossing suburb profileRecent sales in Paynes Crossing
Keep exploring
- National investment guide - top suburbs across every metric
- Take the suburb finder quiz - 5 questions to match your goals
- How our investment score works
- Property investment glossary - every term defined
Compare any 2-4 Australian suburbs
Build your own multi-suburb comparison with the full interactive tool.
Open interactive comparison