Boorhaman vs Maffra
Property investment comparison - Boorhaman, VIC 3678 vs Maffra, VIC 3860
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Boorhaman wins 1, Maffra 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 | Maffra |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $500K | $500K |
| Median unit price | - | $360K |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 7.70% | 4.98% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | - | - |
| 1-year house growth | - | +12.5% |
| 3-year house growth | - | +10.6% |
| Vacancy rate | 2.0% | 1.5% |
| Population | 135 | 5,384 |
Boorhaman vs Maffra: what the numbers say
Houses cost about the same in both suburbs: the median house price is $500K in Boorhaman and $500K in Maffra.
On cash flow, Boorhaman leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 7.70%, compared with 4.98% in Maffra, a gap of 2.72 percentage points.
Rental vacancy is 1.5% in Maffra and 2.0% in Boorhaman, so landlords in Maffra face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.
Maffra is the bigger suburb, with a population of 5,384 against 135, roughly 40 times the size of Boorhaman; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Boorhaman for rental income, Maffra 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