Pasadena vs Sellicks Hill
Property investment comparison - Pasadena, SA 5042 vs Sellicks Hill, SA 5174
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Pasadena wins 4, Sellicks Hill 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 | Pasadena | Sellicks Hill |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $1.2M | $1.2M |
| Median unit price | - | $335K |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 3.10% | 1.99% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | 4.67% | 3.22% |
| 1-year house growth | +12.2%estimate | - |
| 3-year house growth | - | - |
| Vacancy rate | 0.5% | 2.9% |
| Population | 3,073 | 299 |
Pasadena vs Sellicks Hill: what the numbers say
The median house price is $1.2M in Pasadena and $1.2M in Sellicks Hill, so Pasadena is the cheaper entry point, with Sellicks Hill houses about 5% dearer.
On cash flow, Pasadena leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 3.10%, compared with 1.99% in Sellicks Hill, a gap of 1.11 percentage points.
Rental vacancy is 0.5% in Pasadena and 2.9% in Sellicks Hill, so landlords in Pasadena face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.
Pasadena is the bigger suburb, with a population of 3,073 against 299, roughly 10 times the size of Sellicks Hill; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Pasadena for rental income, Pasadena for a lower purchase price, 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