Skip to main content

Run-O-Waters vs Wattle Grove

Property investment comparison - Run-O-Waters, NSW 2580 vs Wattle Grove, NSW 2173

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Run-O-Waters wins 3, Wattle Grove wins 2. 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-WatersWattle Grove
Median house price$1.4M$1.4M
Median unit price$560K-
Gross rental yield (houses)2.17%2.98%
Gross rental yield (units)4.04%4.02%
1-year house growth+5.4%estimate+6.3%
3-year house growth-+24.3%
Vacancy rate0.8%1.2%
Population6058,886

Run-O-Waters vs Wattle Grove: what the numbers say

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

On cash flow, Wattle Grove leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 2.98%, compared with 2.17% in Run-O-Waters, a gap of 0.81 percentage points.

Over the past year house prices moved +5.4% in Run-O-Waters (an estimate) and +6.3% in Wattle Grove, so recent momentum favours Wattle Grove, although both suburbs recorded growth.

Rental vacancy is 0.8% in Run-O-Waters and 1.2% in Wattle Grove, 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.

Wattle Grove is the bigger suburb, with a population of 8,886 against 605, roughly 15 times the size of Run-O-Waters; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Wattle Grove for rental income, Run-O-Waters for a lower purchase price, Wattle Grove 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