Barkly vs Murchison
Property investment comparison - Barkly, VIC 3381 vs Murchison, VIC 3610
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Barkly wins 0, Murchison 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.
| Metric | Barkly | Murchison |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $425K | $425K |
| Median unit price | $585K | - |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 4.38% | 5.29% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | 3.70% | 7.79% |
| 1-year house growth | - | +7.7%estimate |
| 3-year house growth | - | - |
| Vacancy rate | 6.2% | 3.7% |
| Population | 49 | 884 |
Barkly vs Murchison: what the numbers say
Houses cost about the same in both suburbs: the median house price is $425K in Barkly and $425K in Murchison.
On cash flow, Murchison leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 5.29%, compared with 4.38% in Barkly, a gap of 0.91 percentage points.
Rental vacancy is 3.7% in Murchison and 6.2% in Barkly, so landlords in Murchison face less competition for tenants.
Murchison is the bigger suburb, with a population of 884 against 49, roughly 18 times the size of Barkly; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Murchison for rental income, Murchison 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