Bessiebelle vs Wangaratta
Property investment comparison - Bessiebelle, VIC 3304 vs Wangaratta, VIC 3677
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Bessiebelle wins 1, Wangaratta wins 0. 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 | Bessiebelle | Wangaratta |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $565K | $565K |
| Median unit price | - | $400K |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 4.98% | 4.90% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | - | 5.30% |
| 1-year house growth | - | +7.6% |
| 3-year house growth | - | +9.0% |
| Vacancy rate | 0.8% | 0.8% |
| Population | 113 | 19,214 |
Bessiebelle vs Wangaratta: what the numbers say
Houses cost about the same in both suburbs: the median house price is $565K in Bessiebelle and $565K in Wangaratta.
On cash flow, Bessiebelle leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 4.98%, compared with 4.90% in Wangaratta, a gap of 0.08 percentage points.
Rental vacancy is the same in both, at 0.8%.
Wangaratta is the bigger suburb, with a population of 19,214 against 113, roughly 170 times the size of Bessiebelle; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Bessiebelle for rental income. 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