Skip to main content

Ascot vs Woodvale

Property investment comparison - Ascot, WA 6104 vs Woodvale, WA 6026

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Ascot wins 4, Woodvale 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.

MetricAscotWoodvale
Median house price$1.4M$1.4M
Median unit price$610K$625K
Gross rental yield (houses)-3.62%
Gross rental yield (units)5.25%3.74%
1-year house growth+18.2%+19.8%
3-year house growth+60.0%+72.1%
Vacancy rate0.6%1.8%
Population3,0959,579

Ascot vs Woodvale: what the numbers say

The median house price is $1.4M in Ascot and $1.4M in Woodvale, so Ascot is the cheaper entry point.

For units, Ascot sits at a median of $610K against $625K in Woodvale, which makes Ascot the more affordable unit market and Woodvale the pricier one.

Over the past year house prices moved +18.2% in Ascot and +19.8% in Woodvale, so recent momentum favours Woodvale, although both suburbs recorded growth.

Looking back three years, Ascot houses are +60.0% and Woodvale houses +72.1%, so Woodvale has compounded faster than Ascot over the longer window.

Rental vacancy is 0.6% in Ascot and 1.8% in Woodvale, so landlords in Ascot face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.

Woodvale is the bigger suburb, with a population of 9,579 against 3,095, roughly 3.1 times the size of Ascot; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Ascot for a lower purchase price, Woodvale 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
Ascot vs Woodvale: Property Investment Comparison (2026)