Skip to main content

Avoca vs Beaconsfield

Property investment comparison - Avoca, QLD 4670 vs Beaconsfield, QLD 4740

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Avoca wins 1, Beaconsfield 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.

MetricAvocaBeaconsfield
Median house price$730K$730K
Median unit price--
Gross rental yield (houses)4.50%5.19%
Gross rental yield (units)4.06%-
1-year house growth+16.6%+12.3%
3-year house growth+56.1%+63.1%
Vacancy rate1.1%0.8%
Population4,9125,899

Avoca vs Beaconsfield: what the numbers say

Houses cost about the same in both suburbs: the median house price is $730K in Avoca and $730K in Beaconsfield.

On cash flow, Beaconsfield leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 5.19%, compared with 4.50% in Avoca, a gap of 0.69 percentage points.

Over the past year house prices moved +16.6% in Avoca and +12.3% in Beaconsfield, so recent momentum favours Avoca, although both suburbs recorded growth.

Looking back three years, Avoca houses are +56.1% and Beaconsfield houses +63.1%, so Beaconsfield has compounded faster than Avoca over the longer window.

Rental vacancy is 0.8% in Beaconsfield and 1.1% in Avoca, so landlords in Beaconsfield face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.

Beaconsfield is the bigger suburb, with a population of 5,899 against 4,912, larger than Avoca; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Beaconsfield for rental income, Avoca for recent price momentum, Beaconsfield 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