Big Grove vs Kensington
Property investment comparison - Big Grove, WA 6330 vs Kensington, WA 6151
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Big Grove wins 1, Kensington 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 | Big Grove | Kensington |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $1.7M | $1.7M |
| Median unit price | $450K | - |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 1.64% | 2.55% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | 6.22% | - |
| 1-year house growth | - | +17.9% |
| 3-year house growth | - | +48.4% |
| Vacancy rate | 0.2% | 0.6% |
| Population | 225 | 4,627 |
Big Grove vs Kensington: what the numbers say
The median house price is $1.7M in Big Grove and $1.7M in Kensington, so Kensington is the cheaper entry point, with Big Grove houses about 2% dearer.
On cash flow, Kensington leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 2.55%, compared with 1.64% in Big Grove, a gap of 0.91 percentage points.
Rental vacancy is 0.2% in Big Grove and 0.6% in Kensington, so landlords in Big Grove face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.
Kensington is the bigger suburb, with a population of 4,627 against 225, roughly 21 times the size of Big Grove; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Kensington for rental income, Kensington for a lower purchase price, Big Grove 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