Skip to main content

Port Adelaide vs Royal Park

Property investment comparison - Port Adelaide, SA 5015 vs Royal Park, SA 5014

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Port Adelaide wins 2, Royal Park wins 3. 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.

MetricPort AdelaideRoyal Park
Median house price$870K$865K
Median unit price$700K$585K
Gross rental yield (houses)3.90%3.65%
Gross rental yield (units)4.51%5.09%
1-year house growth+15.3%estimate+8.7%estimate
3-year house growth--
Vacancy rate0.6%0.6%
Population1,3383,453

Port Adelaide vs Royal Park: what the numbers say

The median house price is $870K in Port Adelaide and $865K in Royal Park, so Royal Park is the cheaper entry point, with Port Adelaide houses about 1% dearer.

For units, Port Adelaide sits at a median of $700K against $585K in Royal Park, which makes Royal Park the more affordable unit market and Port Adelaide the pricier one.

On cash flow, Port Adelaide leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 3.90%, compared with 3.65% in Royal Park, a gap of 0.25 percentage points.

Over the past year house prices moved +15.3% in Port Adelaide (an estimate) and +8.7% in Royal Park (an estimate), so recent momentum favours Port Adelaide, although both suburbs recorded growth.

Rental vacancy is the same in both, at 0.6%.

Royal Park is the bigger suburb, with a population of 3,453 against 1,338, roughly 2.6 times the size of Port Adelaide; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Port Adelaide for rental income, Royal Park for a lower purchase price, Port Adelaide for recent price momentum. 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