Baskerville vs Subiaco

The median house price is $2.2M in Baskerville and $2.2M in Subiaco, so Subiaco is the cheaper entry point, with Baskerville houses about 2% dearer.

For units, Baskerville sits at a median of $790K against $815K in Subiaco, which makes Baskerville the more affordable unit market and Subiaco the pricier one.

On cash flow, Subiaco leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 2.70%, compared with 1.49% in Baskerville, a gap of 1.21 percentage points.

Over the past year house prices moved +16.1% in Baskerville and +21.2% in Subiaco (an estimate), so recent momentum favours Subiaco, although both suburbs recorded growth.

Rental vacancy is 0.8% in Subiaco and 3.5% in Baskerville, so landlords in Subiaco face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.

Subiaco is the bigger suburb, with a population of 9,940 against 302, roughly 33 times the size of Baskerville; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Subiaco for rental income, Subiaco for a lower purchase price, Subiaco for recent price momentum, Subiaco for the tighter rental market. Which matters more depends on whether the investor is buying for cash flow, capital growth or affordability.