Seven Hills vs Woodpark
Property investment comparison - Seven Hills, NSW 2147 vs Woodpark, NSW 2164
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Seven Hills wins 2, Woodpark wins 1. 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 | Seven Hills | Woodpark |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $1.3M | $1.3M |
| Median unit price | $725K | - |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 2.60% | - |
| Gross rental yield (units) | 4.79% | 4.25% |
| 1-year house growth | +4.1%estimate | +8.1% |
| 3-year house growth | - | +23.9% |
| Vacancy rate | 1.6% | 2.5% |
| Population | 20,095 | 1,706 |
Seven Hills vs Woodpark: what the numbers say
Houses cost about the same in both suburbs: the median house price is $1.3M in Seven Hills and $1.3M in Woodpark.
Over the past year house prices moved +4.1% in Seven Hills (an estimate) and +8.1% in Woodpark, so recent momentum favours Woodpark, although both suburbs recorded growth.
Rental vacancy is 1.6% in Seven Hills and 2.5% in Woodpark, so landlords in Seven Hills face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.
Seven Hills is the bigger suburb, with a population of 20,095 against 1,706, roughly 12 times the size of Woodpark; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Woodpark for recent price momentum, Seven Hills 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