Attwood vs Fawcett
Property investment comparison - Attwood, VIC 3049 vs Fawcett, VIC 3714
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Attwood wins 1, Fawcett 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.
| Metric | Attwood | Fawcett |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $900K | $900K |
| Median unit price | $225K | - |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 3.18% | 2.02% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | 4.24% | - |
| 1-year house growth | +16.1%estimate | - |
| 3-year house growth | - | - |
| Vacancy rate | 1.9% | 1.0% |
| Population | 3,309 | 82 |
Attwood vs Fawcett: what the numbers say
Houses cost about the same in both suburbs: the median house price is $900K in Attwood and $900K in Fawcett.
On cash flow, Attwood leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 3.18%, compared with 2.02% in Fawcett, a gap of 1.16 percentage points.
Rental vacancy is 1.0% in Fawcett and 1.9% in Attwood, so landlords in Fawcett face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.
Attwood is the bigger suburb, with a population of 3,309 against 82, roughly 40 times the size of Fawcett; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Attwood for rental income, Fawcett 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