Skip to main content

Thirlmere vs Woodford

Property investment comparison - Thirlmere, NSW 2572 vs Woodford, NSW 2778

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Thirlmere wins 2, Woodford 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.

MetricThirlmereWoodford
Median house price$1.0M$1.0M
Median unit price-$730K
Gross rental yield (houses)3.38%3.50%
Gross rental yield (units)-3.41%
1-year house growth+10.9%estimate+9.5%
3-year house growth-+26.7%
Vacancy rate2.2%0.9%
Population4,9861,953

Thirlmere vs Woodford: what the numbers say

The median house price is $1.0M in Thirlmere and $1.0M in Woodford, so Thirlmere is the cheaper entry point.

On cash flow, Woodford leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 3.50%, compared with 3.38% in Thirlmere, a gap of 0.12 percentage points.

Over the past year house prices moved +10.9% in Thirlmere (an estimate) and +9.5% in Woodford, so recent momentum favours Thirlmere, although both suburbs recorded growth.

Rental vacancy is 0.9% in Woodford and 2.2% in Thirlmere, so landlords in Woodford face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.

Thirlmere is the bigger suburb, with a population of 4,986 against 1,953, roughly 2.6 times the size of Woodford; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Woodford for rental income, Thirlmere for a lower purchase price, Thirlmere for recent price momentum, Woodford 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