Skip to main content

Warabrook vs Woolgoolga

Property investment comparison - Warabrook, NSW 2304 vs Woolgoolga, NSW 2456

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Warabrook wins 3, Woolgoolga 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.

MetricWarabrookWoolgoolga
Median house price$970K$970K
Median unit price-$760K
Gross rental yield (houses)3.80%3.65%
Gross rental yield (units)4.66%-
1-year house growth+10.0%+9.5%estimate
3-year house growth+24.0%-
Vacancy rate0.6%1.1%
Population1,9826,151

Warabrook vs Woolgoolga: what the numbers say

Houses cost about the same in both suburbs: the median house price is $970K in Warabrook and $970K in Woolgoolga.

On cash flow, Warabrook leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 3.80%, compared with 3.65% in Woolgoolga, a gap of 0.15 percentage points.

Over the past year house prices moved +10.0% in Warabrook and +9.5% in Woolgoolga (an estimate), so recent momentum favours Warabrook, although both suburbs recorded growth.

Rental vacancy is 0.6% in Warabrook and 1.1% in Woolgoolga, so landlords in Warabrook face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.

Woolgoolga is the bigger suburb, with a population of 6,151 against 1,982, roughly 3.1 times the size of Warabrook; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Warabrook for rental income, Warabrook for recent price momentum, Warabrook 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