Back to results

Homebush vs Port Hacking — which is best for infrastructure?

Same eight metrics, scored against the same benchmark, ranked against a $1.50Mbudget. Look for where one suburb is materially ahead — that's the dimension that should sway your call.

  1. Homebush

    NSW · 2140
    59Average
    Median
    $1.30M
    5y growth
    5.0%/yr
    BalancedStable entry point

  2. Port Hacking

    NSW · 2229
    52Average
    Median
    $1.00M
    5y growth
    5.0%/yr
    YieldStable entry point

Metric breakdown

Each row scores 0–100 against a fixed benchmark. The leader on each row is highlighted.

Metric · weight
Homebush
Port Hacking
Capital growth (5y)
weight 22%
505.0%/yr
505.0%/yr
Rental yield
weight 13%
381.9%
834.1%
Rental demand
weight 10%
681.3%
681.3%
Population growth
weight 12%
656.5%
656.5%
Income growth
weight 12%
6416.0%
6015.0%
Construction pipeline
weight 15%
92$4.6bn
0–
Affordability
weight 8%
1313% under cap
3333% under cap
Supply tightening
weight 8%
75-5.0% YoY
70-4.0% YoY

Winner per dimension

Where each suburb leads the field, with the count of dimensions won.

  1. Homebush

    3/8
    • Income growth
    • Construction pipeline
    • Supply tightening

  2. Port Hacking

    2/8
    • Rental yield
    • Affordability

Why Homebush

Stable entry point

$4.6bn pipeline incl. Sydney Metro West — Olympic Park, listings tightening 5.0% YoY.

Drivers
  • Infrastructure pipeline$4.6bn nearby
  • Supply tightening-5.0% YoY
  • Tight rentals1.3%
  • Population growth+6.5% (5y)
Risks
  • Thin gross yield (1.9%)

Construction ·Sydney Metro West — Olympic Park1.7 kmConstruction · 2030

Why Port Hacking

Stable entry point

4.1% gross yield, listings tightening 4.0% YoY.

Drivers
  • Rental yield4.1%
  • Supply tightening-4.0% YoY
  • Tight rentals1.3%
  • Population growth+6.5% (5y)
Risks
  • No major construction project in this state

Construction ·WestConnex M4–M5 Link17.9 kmRecently completed · 2024