Skip to main content

Blowhard vs Bundalong

Property investment comparison - Blowhard, VIC 3352 vs Bundalong, VIC 3730

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Blowhard wins 2, Bundalong 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.

MetricBlowhardBundalong
Median house price$830K$830K
Median unit price$495K$525K
Gross rental yield (houses)3.62%3.45%
Gross rental yield (units)3.71%3.77%
1-year house growth-+6.1%estimate
3-year house growth--
Vacancy rate1.8%1.1%
Population82512

Blowhard vs Bundalong: what the numbers say

Houses cost about the same in both suburbs: the median house price is $830K in Blowhard and $830K in Bundalong.

For units, Blowhard sits at a median of $495K against $525K in Bundalong, which makes Blowhard the more affordable unit market and Bundalong the pricier one.

On cash flow, Blowhard leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 3.62%, compared with 3.45% in Bundalong, a gap of 0.17 percentage points.

Rental vacancy is 1.1% in Bundalong and 1.8% in Blowhard, so landlords in Bundalong face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.

Bundalong is the bigger suburb, with a population of 512 against 82, roughly 6 times the size of Blowhard; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Blowhard for rental income, Bundalong 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