Skip to main content

Warabrook vs Wyoming

Property investment comparison - Warabrook, NSW 2304 vs Wyoming, NSW 2250

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Warabrook wins 5, Wyoming 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.

MetricWarabrookWyoming
Median house price$970K$970K
Median unit price-$650K
Gross rental yield (houses)3.80%3.75%
Gross rental yield (units)4.66%4.50%
1-year house growth+10.0%+7.8%
3-year house growth+24.0%+12.3%
Vacancy rate0.6%0.9%
Population1,98210,111

Warabrook vs Wyoming: what the numbers say

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

Gross rental yield on houses is effectively level, at 3.80% in Warabrook and 3.75% in Wyoming, so neither suburb has a cash flow edge on houses.

Over the past year house prices moved +10.0% in Warabrook and +7.8% in Wyoming, so recent momentum favours Warabrook, although both suburbs recorded growth.

Looking back three years, Warabrook houses are +24.0% and Wyoming houses +12.3%, so Warabrook has compounded faster than Wyoming over the longer window.

Rental vacancy is 0.6% in Warabrook and 0.9% in Wyoming, so landlords in Warabrook face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.

Wyoming is the bigger suburb, with a population of 10,111 against 1,982, roughly 5 times the size of Warabrook; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: 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