Ayrford vs Mallacoota
Property investment comparison - Ayrford, VIC 3268 vs Mallacoota, VIC 3892
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Ayrford wins 1, Mallacoota 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 | Ayrford | Mallacoota |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $535K | $540K |
| Median unit price | - | - |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 4.20% | - |
| Gross rental yield (units) | - | - |
| 1-year house growth | - | +5.6%estimate |
| 3-year house growth | - | - |
| Vacancy rate | 2.7% | 0.4% |
| Population | 39 | 1,183 |
Ayrford vs Mallacoota: what the numbers say
The median house price is $535K in Ayrford and $540K in Mallacoota, so Ayrford is the cheaper entry point, with Mallacoota houses about 1% dearer.
Rental vacancy is 0.4% in Mallacoota and 2.7% in Ayrford, so landlords in Mallacoota face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.
Mallacoota is the bigger suburb, with a population of 1,183 against 39, roughly 30 times the size of Ayrford; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Ayrford for a lower purchase price, Mallacoota 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