Skip to main content

Ascot vs Murdoch

Property investment comparison - Ascot, WA 6104 vs Murdoch, WA 6150

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Ascot wins 3, Murdoch 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.

MetricAscotMurdoch
Median house price$1.4M$1.3M
Median unit price$610K$1.1M
Gross rental yield (houses)-3.30%
Gross rental yield (units)5.25%-
1-year house growth+18.2%+9.5%estimate
3-year house growth+60.0%-
Vacancy rate0.6%1.0%
Population3,0953,352

Ascot vs Murdoch: what the numbers say

The median house price is $1.4M in Ascot and $1.3M in Murdoch, so Murdoch is the cheaper entry point, with Ascot houses about 2% dearer.

For units, Ascot sits at a median of $610K against $1.1M in Murdoch, which makes Ascot the more affordable unit market and Murdoch the pricier one.

Over the past year house prices moved +18.2% in Ascot and +9.5% in Murdoch (an estimate), so recent momentum favours Ascot, although both suburbs recorded growth.

Rental vacancy is 0.6% in Ascot and 1.0% in Murdoch, so landlords in Ascot face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.

Murdoch is the bigger suburb, with a population of 3,352 against 3,095, larger than Ascot; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Murdoch for a lower purchase price, Ascot for recent price momentum, Ascot 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