Albanvale vs Tatura
Property investment comparison - Albanvale, VIC 3021 vs Tatura, VIC 3616
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Albanvale wins 2, Tatura 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 | Albanvale | Tatura |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $690K | - |
| Median unit price | - | $325K |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 3.74% | 5.50% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | 5.00% | 5.99% |
| 1-year house growth | +10.4% | +8.7%estimate |
| 3-year house growth | +13.4% | - |
| Vacancy rate | 0.6% | 2.7% |
| Population | 5,641 | 4,955 |
Albanvale vs Tatura: what the numbers say
On cash flow, Tatura leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 5.50%, compared with 3.74% in Albanvale, a gap of 1.76 percentage points.
Over the past year house prices moved +10.4% in Albanvale and +8.7% in Tatura (an estimate), so recent momentum favours Albanvale, although both suburbs recorded growth.
Rental vacancy is 0.6% in Albanvale and 2.7% in Tatura, so landlords in Albanvale face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.
Albanvale is the bigger suburb, with a population of 5,641 against 4,955, larger than Tatura; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Tatura for rental income, Albanvale for recent price momentum, Albanvale 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