Ashby vs Redcliffe
Property investment comparison - Ashby, WA 6065 vs Redcliffe, WA 6104
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Ashby wins 0, Redcliffe 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.
| Metric | Ashby | Redcliffe |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $930K | $930K |
| Median unit price | - | $610K |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 4.10% | 4.28% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | 4.95% | 5.65% |
| 1-year house growth | - | +19.3% |
| 3-year house growth | - | +73.5% |
| Vacancy rate | 0.9% | 0.4% |
| Population | 2,850 | 5,030 |
Ashby vs Redcliffe: what the numbers say
Houses cost about the same in both suburbs: the median house price is $930K in Ashby and $930K in Redcliffe.
On cash flow, Redcliffe leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 4.28%, compared with 4.10% in Ashby, a gap of 0.18 percentage points.
Rental vacancy is 0.4% in Redcliffe and 0.9% in Ashby, so landlords in Redcliffe face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.
Redcliffe is the bigger suburb, with a population of 5,030 against 2,850, larger than Ashby; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Redcliffe for rental income, Redcliffe 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