Aintree vs Musk
Property investment comparison - Aintree, VIC 3336 vs Musk, VIC 3461
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Aintree wins 2, Musk wins 1. 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 | Aintree | Musk |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $705K | - |
| Median unit price | $575K | $1.5M |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 3.98% | 2.05% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | 2.49% | - |
| 1-year house growth | +1.1% | - |
| 3-year house growth | -3.9% | - |
| Vacancy rate | 14.5% | 3.2% |
| Population | 7,982 | 177 |
Aintree vs Musk: what the numbers say
For units, Aintree sits at a median of $575K against $1.5M in Musk, which makes Aintree the more affordable unit market and Musk the pricier one.
On cash flow, Aintree leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 3.98%, compared with 2.05% in Musk, a gap of 1.93 percentage points.
Rental vacancy is 3.2% in Musk and 14.5% in Aintree, so landlords in Musk face less competition for tenants.
Aintree is the bigger suburb, with a population of 7,982 against 177, roughly 45 times the size of Musk; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Aintree for rental income, Musk 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