Skip to main content

Alfred Cove vs O'Connor

Property investment comparison - Alfred Cove, WA 6154 vs O'Connor, WA 6163

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Alfred Cove wins 0, O'Connor wins 4. 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.

MetricAlfred CoveO'Connor
Median house price$1.6M-
Median unit price$740K$625K
Gross rental yield (houses)3.10%3.71%
Gross rental yield (units)5.26%-
1-year house growth+11.9%+22.6%estimate
3-year house growth+59.5%-
Vacancy rate1.1%0.1%
Population2,830460

Alfred Cove vs O'Connor: what the numbers say

For units, Alfred Cove sits at a median of $740K against $625K in O'Connor, which makes O'Connor the more affordable unit market and Alfred Cove the pricier one.

On cash flow, O'Connor leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 3.71%, compared with 3.10% in Alfred Cove, a gap of 0.61 percentage points.

Over the past year house prices moved +11.9% in Alfred Cove and +22.6% in O'Connor (an estimate), so recent momentum favours O'Connor, although both suburbs recorded growth.

Rental vacancy is 0.1% in O'Connor and 1.1% in Alfred Cove, so landlords in O'Connor face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.

Alfred Cove is the bigger suburb, with a population of 2,830 against 460, roughly 6 times the size of O'Connor; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: O'Connor for rental income, O'Connor for recent price momentum, O'Connor for the tighter rental market. Which matters more depends on whether the investor is buying for cash flow, capital growth or affordability.

Keep exploring

Compare any 2-4 Australian suburbs

Build your own multi-suburb comparison with the full interactive tool.

Open interactive comparison