Belmunda vs Longreach
Property investment comparison - Belmunda, QLD 4740 vs Longreach, QLD 4730
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Belmunda wins 1, Longreach 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 | Belmunda | Longreach |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $345K | $350K |
| Median unit price | - | $285K |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | - | 5.94% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | - | 4.10% |
| 1-year house growth | -10.5% | - |
| 3-year house growth | - | - |
| Vacancy rate | 1.9% | 0.4% |
| Population | 6 | 3,124 |
Belmunda vs Longreach: what the numbers say
The median house price is $345K in Belmunda and $350K in Longreach, so Belmunda is the cheaper entry point, with Longreach houses about 1% dearer.
Rental vacancy is 0.4% in Longreach and 1.9% in Belmunda, so landlords in Longreach face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.
Longreach is the bigger suburb, with a population of 3,124 against 6, roughly 521 times the size of Belmunda; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Belmunda for a lower purchase price, Longreach 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