Skip to main content

Anketell vs O'Connor

Property investment comparison - Anketell, WA 6167 vs O'Connor, WA 6163

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Anketell wins 1, O'Connor wins 3. 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.

MetricAnketellO'Connor
Median house price$810K-
Median unit price$670K$625K
Gross rental yield (houses)4.40%3.71%
Gross rental yield (units)3.00%-
1-year house growth+20.2%+22.6%estimate
3-year house growth-11.7%-
Vacancy rate2.9%0.1%
Population280460

Anketell vs O'Connor: what the numbers say

For units, Anketell sits at a median of $670K against $625K in O'Connor, which makes O'Connor the more affordable unit market and Anketell the pricier one.

On cash flow, Anketell leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 4.40%, compared with 3.71% in O'Connor, a gap of 0.69 percentage points.

Over the past year house prices moved +20.2% in Anketell 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 2.9% in Anketell, 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.

O'Connor is the bigger suburb, with a population of 460 against 280, larger than Anketell; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Anketell 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