Avoca vs Bears Lagoon
Property investment comparison - Avoca, VIC 3467 vs Bears Lagoon, VIC 3517
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Avoca wins 1, Bears Lagoon 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 | Avoca | Bears Lagoon |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $400K | $400K |
| Median unit price | $320K | - |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 5.06% | 5.60% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | 2.61% | - |
| 1-year house growth | +6.0%estimate | - |
| 3-year house growth | - | - |
| Vacancy rate | 0.9% | 2.8% |
| Population | 1,356 | 53 |
Avoca vs Bears Lagoon: what the numbers say
Houses cost about the same in both suburbs: the median house price is $400K in Avoca and $400K in Bears Lagoon.
On cash flow, Bears Lagoon leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 5.60%, compared with 5.06% in Avoca, a gap of 0.54 percentage points.
Rental vacancy is 0.9% in Avoca and 2.8% in Bears Lagoon, so landlords in Avoca face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.
Avoca is the bigger suburb, with a population of 1,356 against 53, roughly 26 times the size of Bears Lagoon; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Bears Lagoon for rental income, Avoca 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