Skip to main content

Altona Meadows vs Waterloo

Property investment comparison - Altona Meadows, VIC 3028 vs Waterloo, VIC 3373

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Altona Meadows wins 2, Waterloo 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.

MetricAltona MeadowsWaterloo
Median house price$775K$775K
Median unit price$560K$390K
Gross rental yield (houses)3.65%2.46%
Gross rental yield (units)4.37%2.03%
1-year house growth+5.4%-
3-year house growth+11.6%-
Vacancy rate1.5%0.9%
Population18,479122

Altona Meadows vs Waterloo: what the numbers say

Houses cost about the same in both suburbs: the median house price is $775K in Altona Meadows and $775K in Waterloo.

For units, Altona Meadows sits at a median of $560K against $390K in Waterloo, which makes Waterloo the more affordable unit market and Altona Meadows the pricier one.

On cash flow, Altona Meadows leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 3.65%, compared with 2.46% in Waterloo, a gap of 1.19 percentage points.

Rental vacancy is 0.9% in Waterloo and 1.5% in Altona Meadows, so landlords in Waterloo face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.

Altona Meadows is the bigger suburb, with a population of 18,479 against 122, roughly 151 times the size of Waterloo; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Altona Meadows for rental income, Waterloo 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