Aintree vs Wonga
Property investment comparison - Aintree, VIC 3336 vs Wonga, VIC 3960
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Aintree wins 1, Wonga 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 | Wonga |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $705K | - |
| Median unit price | $575K | $695K |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 3.98% | - |
| Gross rental yield (units) | 2.49% | - |
| 1-year house growth | +1.1% | - |
| 3-year house growth | -3.9% | - |
| Vacancy rate | 14.5% | 1.3% |
| Population | 7,982 | 44 |
Aintree vs Wonga: what the numbers say
For units, Aintree sits at a median of $575K against $695K in Wonga, which makes Aintree the more affordable unit market and Wonga the pricier one.
Rental vacancy is 1.3% in Wonga and 14.5% in Aintree, so landlords in Wonga face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.
Aintree is the bigger suburb, with a population of 7,982 against 44, roughly 181 times the size of Wonga; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Wonga 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