Regentville vs Wallalong
Property investment comparison - Regentville, NSW 2745 vs Wallalong, NSW 2320
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Regentville wins 1, Wallalong 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.
| Metric | Regentville | Wallalong |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $1.3M | $1.3M |
| Median unit price | $750K | $525K |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 2.66% | 2.75% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | 4.56% | 6.04% |
| 1-year house growth | +10.2%estimate | - |
| 3-year house growth | - | +42.0% |
| Vacancy rate | 2.8% | 12.6% |
| Population | 829 | 1,049 |
Regentville vs Wallalong: what the numbers say
Houses cost about the same in both suburbs: the median house price is $1.3M in Regentville and $1.3M in Wallalong.
For units, Regentville sits at a median of $750K against $525K in Wallalong, which makes Wallalong the more affordable unit market and Regentville the pricier one.
On cash flow, Wallalong leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 2.75%, compared with 2.66% in Regentville, a gap of 0.09 percentage points.
Rental vacancy is 2.8% in Regentville and 12.6% in Wallalong, so landlords in Regentville face less competition for tenants.
Wallalong is the bigger suburb, with a population of 1,049 against 829, larger than Regentville; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Wallalong for rental income, Regentville 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