Alfred Cove vs Erskine
Property investment comparison - Alfred Cove, WA 6154 vs Erskine, WA 6210
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Alfred Cove wins 1, Erskine 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 | Alfred Cove | Erskine |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $1.6M | - |
| Median unit price | $740K | - |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 3.10% | - |
| Gross rental yield (units) | 5.26% | - |
| 1-year house growth | +11.9% | +16.1%estimate |
| 3-year house growth | +59.5% | - |
| Vacancy rate | 1.1% | 1.2% |
| Population | 2,830 | 5,429 |
Alfred Cove vs Erskine: what the numbers say
Over the past year house prices moved +11.9% in Alfred Cove and +16.1% in Erskine (an estimate), so recent momentum favours Erskine, although both suburbs recorded growth.
Rental vacancy is 1.1% in Alfred Cove and 1.2% in Erskine, so landlords in Alfred Cove face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.
Erskine is the bigger suburb, with a population of 5,429 against 2,830, larger than Alfred Cove; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Erskine for recent price momentum, Alfred Cove 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