Skip to main content

Pasadena vs Plympton Park

Property investment comparison - Pasadena, SA 5042 vs Plympton Park, SA 5038

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Pasadena wins 5, Plympton Park 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.

MetricPasadenaPlympton Park
Median house price$1.2M$1.2M
Median unit price-$630K
Gross rental yield (houses)3.10%3.07%
Gross rental yield (units)4.67%4.27%
1-year house growth+12.2%estimate+10.0%
3-year house growth-+42.2%
Vacancy rate0.5%1.3%
Population3,0733,881

Pasadena vs Plympton Park: what the numbers say

The median house price is $1.2M in Pasadena and $1.2M in Plympton Park, so Pasadena is the cheaper entry point, with Plympton Park houses about 2% dearer.

Gross rental yield on houses is effectively level, at 3.10% in Pasadena and 3.07% in Plympton Park, so neither suburb has a cash flow edge on houses.

Over the past year house prices moved +12.2% in Pasadena (an estimate) and +10.0% in Plympton Park, so recent momentum favours Pasadena, although both suburbs recorded growth.

Rental vacancy is 0.5% in Pasadena and 1.3% in Plympton Park, so landlords in Pasadena face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.

Plympton Park is the bigger suburb, with a population of 3,881 against 3,073, larger than Pasadena; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

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