Skip to main content

Run-O-Waters vs Stockton

Property investment comparison - Run-O-Waters, NSW 2580 vs Stockton, NSW 2295

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Run-O-Waters wins 2, Stockton 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.

MetricRun-O-WatersStockton
Median house price$1.4M$1.4M
Median unit price$560K-
Gross rental yield (houses)2.17%2.96%
Gross rental yield (units)4.04%2.44%
1-year house growth+5.4%estimate+8.0%
3-year house growth-+15.8%
Vacancy rate0.8%0.9%
Population6054,046

Run-O-Waters vs Stockton: what the numbers say

The median house price is $1.4M in Run-O-Waters and $1.4M in Stockton, so Stockton is the cheaper entry point.

On cash flow, Stockton leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 2.96%, compared with 2.17% in Run-O-Waters, a gap of 0.79 percentage points.

Over the past year house prices moved +5.4% in Run-O-Waters (an estimate) and +8.0% in Stockton, so recent momentum favours Stockton, although both suburbs recorded growth.

Rental vacancy is 0.8% in Run-O-Waters and 0.9% in Stockton, so landlords in Run-O-Waters face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.

Stockton is the bigger suburb, with a population of 4,046 against 605, roughly 7 times the size of Run-O-Waters; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Stockton for rental income, Stockton for a lower purchase price, Stockton for recent price momentum, Run-O-Waters 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