Skip to main content

Beaconsfield vs Mount Pleasant

Property investment comparison - Beaconsfield, QLD 4740 vs Mount Pleasant, QLD 4740

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Beaconsfield wins 2, Mount Pleasant 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.

MetricBeaconsfieldMount Pleasant
Median house price$730K$730K
Median unit price--
Gross rental yield (houses)5.19%-
Gross rental yield (units)-4.81%
1-year house growth+12.3%+12.5%
3-year house growth+63.1%+54.2%
Vacancy rate0.8%2.4%
Population5,8994,694

Beaconsfield vs Mount Pleasant: what the numbers say

Houses cost about the same in both suburbs: the median house price is $730K in Beaconsfield and $730K in Mount Pleasant.

Over the past year house prices moved +12.3% in Beaconsfield and +12.5% in Mount Pleasant, so recent momentum favours Mount Pleasant, although both suburbs recorded growth.

Looking back three years, Beaconsfield houses are +63.1% and Mount Pleasant houses +54.2%, so Beaconsfield has compounded faster than Mount Pleasant over the longer window.

Rental vacancy is 0.8% in Beaconsfield and 2.4% in Mount Pleasant, so landlords in Beaconsfield face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.

Beaconsfield is the bigger suburb, with a population of 5,899 against 4,694, larger than Mount Pleasant; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Mount Pleasant for recent price momentum, Beaconsfield 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