Skip to main content

Bannockburn vs Regents Park

Property investment comparison - Bannockburn, QLD 4207 vs Regents Park, QLD 4118

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Bannockburn wins 3, Regents Park 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.

MetricBannockburnRegents Park
Median house price$940K$945K
Median unit price--
Gross rental yield (houses)3.64%-
Gross rental yield (units)3.51%4.27%
1-year house growth+21.1%estimate+15.5%
3-year house growth-+45.7%
Vacancy rate0.9%2.4%
Population96011,103

Bannockburn vs Regents Park: what the numbers say

The median house price is $940K in Bannockburn and $945K in Regents Park, so Bannockburn is the cheaper entry point, with Regents Park houses about 1% dearer.

Over the past year house prices moved +21.1% in Bannockburn (an estimate) and +15.5% in Regents Park, so recent momentum favours Bannockburn, although both suburbs recorded growth.

Rental vacancy is 0.9% in Bannockburn and 2.4% in Regents Park, so landlords in Bannockburn face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.

Regents Park is the bigger suburb, with a population of 11,103 against 960, roughly 12 times the size of Bannockburn; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Bannockburn for a lower purchase price, Bannockburn for recent price momentum, Bannockburn 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