Boorcan vs Kerang
Property investment comparison - Boorcan, VIC 3265 vs Kerang, VIC 3579
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Boorcan wins 0, Kerang wins 3. 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 | Boorcan | Kerang |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $330K | $330K |
| Median unit price | $475K | $220K |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | - | 5.84% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | 2.60% | 5.20% |
| 1-year house growth | - | +9.4%estimate |
| 3-year house growth | - | - |
| Vacancy rate | 4.0% | 0.7% |
| Population | 142 | 3,960 |
Boorcan vs Kerang: what the numbers say
Houses cost about the same in both suburbs: the median house price is $330K in Boorcan and $330K in Kerang.
For units, Boorcan sits at a median of $475K against $220K in Kerang, which makes Kerang the more affordable unit market and Boorcan the pricier one.
Rental vacancy is 0.7% in Kerang and 4.0% in Boorcan, so landlords in Kerang face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.
Kerang is the bigger suburb, with a population of 3,960 against 142, roughly 28 times the size of Boorcan; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Kerang 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