Skip to main content

Red Rock vs Wardell

Property investment comparison - Red Rock, NSW 2456 vs Wardell, NSW 2477

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Red Rock wins 1, Wardell wins 4. 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.

MetricRed RockWardell
Median house price$855K$860K
Median unit price$705K-
Gross rental yield (houses)3.13%4.32%
Gross rental yield (units)4.43%5.68%
1-year house growth-2.7%+5.8%estimate
3-year house growth--
Vacancy rate1.7%0.6%
Population412830

Red Rock vs Wardell: what the numbers say

The median house price is $855K in Red Rock and $860K in Wardell, so Red Rock is the cheaper entry point, with Wardell houses about 1% dearer.

On cash flow, Wardell leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 4.32%, compared with 3.13% in Red Rock, a gap of 1.19 percentage points.

Over the past year house prices moved -2.7% in Red Rock and +5.8% in Wardell (an estimate), so recent momentum favours Wardell, while Red Rock went backwards.

Rental vacancy is 0.6% in Wardell and 1.7% in Red Rock, so landlords in Wardell face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.

Wardell is the bigger suburb, with a population of 830 against 412, roughly 2.0 times the size of Red Rock; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Wardell for rental income, Red Rock for a lower purchase price, Wardell for recent price momentum, Wardell 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