Belmunda vs Monto
Property investment comparison - Belmunda, QLD 4740 vs Monto, QLD 4630
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Belmunda wins 0, Monto wins 2. 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 | Monto |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $345K | $345K |
| Median unit price | - | $250K |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | - | 5.68% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | - | 6.02% |
| 1-year house growth | -10.5% | +19.7%estimate |
| 3-year house growth | - | - |
| Vacancy rate | 1.9% | 0.1% |
| Population | 6 | 1,156 |
Belmunda vs Monto: what the numbers say
Houses cost about the same in both suburbs: the median house price is $345K in Belmunda and $345K in Monto.
Over the past year house prices moved -10.5% in Belmunda and +19.7% in Monto (an estimate), so recent momentum favours Monto, while Belmunda went backwards.
Rental vacancy is 0.1% in Monto and 1.9% in Belmunda, so landlords in Monto face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.
Monto is the bigger suburb, with a population of 1,156 against 6, roughly 193 times the size of Belmunda; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Monto for recent price momentum, Monto 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