Bonshaw vs Llowalong
Property investment comparison - Bonshaw, VIC 3352 vs Llowalong, VIC 3862
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Bonshaw wins 0, Llowalong 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 | Bonshaw | Llowalong |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $605K | $605K |
| Median unit price | $440K | - |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 4.00% | 4.15% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | 3.97% | - |
| 1-year house growth | +11.7% | - |
| 3-year house growth | +7.1% | - |
| Vacancy rate | 1.3% | 0.7% |
| Population | 949 | 42 |
Bonshaw vs Llowalong: what the numbers say
Houses cost about the same in both suburbs: the median house price is $605K in Bonshaw and $605K in Llowalong.
On cash flow, Llowalong leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 4.15%, compared with 4.00% in Bonshaw, a gap of 0.15 percentage points.
Rental vacancy is 0.7% in Llowalong and 1.3% in Bonshaw, so landlords in Llowalong face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.
Bonshaw is the bigger suburb, with a population of 949 against 42, roughly 23 times the size of Llowalong; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Llowalong for rental income, Llowalong 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