Aberfeldie vs Mount Glasgow
Property investment comparison - Aberfeldie, VIC 3040 vs Mount Glasgow, VIC 3371
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Aberfeldie wins 1, Mount Glasgow 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.
| Metric | Aberfeldie | Mount Glasgow |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $1.8M | - |
| Median unit price | $685K | $255K |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 1.98% | 4.70% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | - | 3.03% |
| 1-year house growth | -0.7%estimate | - |
| 3-year house growth | - | - |
| Vacancy rate | 1.5% | 2.9% |
| Population | 3,925 | 92 |
Aberfeldie vs Mount Glasgow: what the numbers say
For units, Aberfeldie sits at a median of $685K against $255K in Mount Glasgow, which makes Mount Glasgow the more affordable unit market and Aberfeldie the pricier one.
On cash flow, Mount Glasgow leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 4.70%, compared with 1.98% in Aberfeldie, a gap of 2.72 percentage points.
Rental vacancy is 1.5% in Aberfeldie and 2.9% in Mount Glasgow, so landlords in Aberfeldie face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.
Aberfeldie is the bigger suburb, with a population of 3,925 against 92, roughly 43 times the size of Mount Glasgow; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Mount Glasgow for rental income, Aberfeldie for the tighter rental market. Which matters more depends on whether the investor is buying for cash flow, capital growth or affordability.
Keep exploring
- National investment guide - top suburbs across every metric
- Take the suburb finder quiz - 5 questions to match your goals
- How our investment score works
- Property investment glossary - every term defined
Compare any 2-4 Australian suburbs
Build your own multi-suburb comparison with the full interactive tool.
Open interactive comparison