Skip to main content

Seacombe Gardens vs Sturt

Property investment comparison - Seacombe Gardens, SA 5047 vs Sturt, SA 5047

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Seacombe Gardens wins 1, Sturt 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.

MetricSeacombe GardensSturt
Median house price$930K$920K
Median unit price--
Gross rental yield (houses)3.60%-
Gross rental yield (units)4.05%-
1-year house growth+9.6%+11.1%
3-year house growth+51.0%+39.0%
Vacancy rate0.2%0.2%
Population3,3732,787

Seacombe Gardens vs Sturt: what the numbers say

The median house price is $930K in Seacombe Gardens and $920K in Sturt, so Sturt is the cheaper entry point, with Seacombe Gardens houses about 1% dearer.

Over the past year house prices moved +9.6% in Seacombe Gardens and +11.1% in Sturt, so recent momentum favours Sturt, although both suburbs recorded growth.

Looking back three years, Seacombe Gardens houses are +51.0% and Sturt houses +39.0%, so Seacombe Gardens has compounded faster than Sturt over the longer window.

Rental vacancy is the same in both, at 0.2%.

Seacombe Gardens is the bigger suburb, with a population of 3,373 against 2,787, larger than Sturt; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Sturt for a lower purchase price, Sturt 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