Skip to main content

Stony Chute vs Uranquinty

Property investment comparison - Stony Chute, NSW 2480 vs Uranquinty, NSW 2652

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Stony Chute wins 5, Uranquinty wins 0. 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.

MetricStony ChuteUranquinty
Median house price$600K$605K
Median unit price$455K$880K
Gross rental yield (houses)6.07%4.38%
Gross rental yield (units)4.75%4.27%
1-year house growth-+14.9%
3-year house growth-+57.6%
Vacancy rate0.3%2.0%
Population156910

Stony Chute vs Uranquinty: what the numbers say

The median house price is $600K in Stony Chute and $605K in Uranquinty, so Stony Chute is the cheaper entry point, with Uranquinty houses about 1% dearer.

For units, Stony Chute sits at a median of $455K against $880K in Uranquinty, which makes Stony Chute the more affordable unit market and Uranquinty the pricier one.

On cash flow, Stony Chute leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 6.07%, compared with 4.38% in Uranquinty, a gap of 1.69 percentage points.

Rental vacancy is 0.3% in Stony Chute and 2.0% in Uranquinty, so landlords in Stony Chute face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.

Uranquinty is the bigger suburb, with a population of 910 against 156, roughly 6 times the size of Stony Chute; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Stony Chute for rental income, Stony Chute for a lower purchase price, Stony Chute 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