What others have said; if you and your wife can agree the resolution of your property and financial affairs, whatever you agree will almost certainly suit both you you better than a resolution dictated by the court because you have failed to agree. And if the agreement is reasonable and fair to both parties the court is very likely to approve it. So concentrate on getting agreement with your wife about this.
However, going into negotiations about things like this, one or both parties very often want to know "if we fail to reach agreement, what kind of solution is the court likely to impose"? That's the kind of information that is helpful to know in negotiations of this kind, since it helps you to evaluate suggestions that might be made in the negotiations — "Is this suggestion better or worse for me than what I would be likely to get if I turn it down, and the matter ends up in court?" So, the question the OP is asking is a reasonable question.
However, it doesn't have a very clear answer. On the face of it, if your wife owns a house that she will live in and to that you haven't contributed , and if you own a house that you will live in that she hasn't contributed towards, "we both keep our own houses" looks like a very reasonable solution that a court is likely to approve. But — no offence — we're only hearing your side of the story. If your wife were making a similar enquiry, she might draw attention to aspects of the situation that seem important or signficant to her, that you think comparatively unimportant. And, if the matter goes to court, then the judge will hear both sides before making a decision, so the judge will be working off different (and fuller) information than we are. So, really, you shouldn't attach too much signficance to what we think a court might decide, if it came to court. We don't know what the court would be told. We don't know what you wife would be seeking. We don't know what arguments she would make in support of what she might seek.