Boorhaman vs Eureka
Property investment comparison - Boorhaman, VIC 3678 vs Eureka, VIC 3350
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Boorhaman wins 1, Eureka wins 1. 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 | Boorhaman | Eureka |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $500K | $500K |
| Median unit price | - | $455K |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 7.70% | 4.00% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | - | 4.51% |
| 1-year house growth | - | +15.3%estimate |
| 3-year house growth | - | - |
| Vacancy rate | 2.0% | 1.2% |
| Population | 135 | 633 |
Boorhaman vs Eureka: what the numbers say
Houses cost about the same in both suburbs: the median house price is $500K in Boorhaman and $500K in Eureka.
On cash flow, Boorhaman leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 7.70%, compared with 4.00% in Eureka, a gap of 3.70 percentage points.
Rental vacancy is 1.2% in Eureka and 2.0% in Boorhaman, so landlords in Eureka face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.
Eureka is the bigger suburb, with a population of 633 against 135, roughly 4.7 times the size of Boorhaman; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Boorhaman for rental income, Eureka 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