Ascot vs Carlyle
Property investment comparison - Ascot, VIC 3551 vs Carlyle, VIC 3685
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Ascot wins 1, Carlyle 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 | Ascot | Carlyle |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $700K | $700K |
| Median unit price | - | $310K |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 4.30% | 4.01% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | 4.57% | 5.91% |
| 1-year house growth | +11.1% | - |
| 3-year house growth | +14.7% | - |
| Vacancy rate | 1.1% | 0.2% |
| Population | 2,571 | 82 |
Ascot vs Carlyle: what the numbers say
Houses cost about the same in both suburbs: the median house price is $700K in Ascot and $700K in Carlyle.
On cash flow, Ascot leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 4.30%, compared with 4.01% in Carlyle, a gap of 0.29 percentage points.
Rental vacancy is 0.2% in Carlyle and 1.1% in Ascot, so landlords in Carlyle face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.
Ascot is the bigger suburb, with a population of 2,571 against 82, roughly 31 times the size of Carlyle; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Ascot for rental income, Carlyle 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