Pasadena vs Plympton
Property investment comparison - Pasadena, SA 5042 vs Plympton, SA 5038
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Pasadena wins 2, Plympton wins 2. 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 | Pasadena | Plympton |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $1.2M | $1.3M |
| Median unit price | - | $590K |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 3.10% | - |
| Gross rental yield (units) | 4.67% | 4.70% |
| 1-year house growth | +12.2%estimate | +15.5%estimate |
| 3-year house growth | - | - |
| Vacancy rate | 0.5% | 0.7% |
| Population | 3,073 | 5,459 |
Pasadena vs Plympton: what the numbers say
The median house price is $1.2M in Pasadena and $1.3M in Plympton, so Pasadena is the cheaper entry point, with Plympton houses about 8% dearer.
Over the past year house prices moved +12.2% in Pasadena (an estimate) and +15.5% in Plympton (an estimate), so recent momentum favours Plympton, although both suburbs recorded growth.
Rental vacancy is 0.5% in Pasadena and 0.7% in Plympton, 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 is the bigger suburb, with a population of 5,459 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, Plympton 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
- 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