Skip to main content

Brisbane City vs Cotton Tree

Property investment comparison - Brisbane City, QLD 4000 vs Cotton Tree, QLD 4558

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Brisbane City wins 2, Cotton Tree 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.

MetricBrisbane CityCotton Tree
Median house price$1.2M$1.2M
Median unit price$770K$975K
Gross rental yield (houses)3.36%3.59%
Gross rental yield (units)5.00%4.16%
1-year house growth+19.2%-
3-year house growth+61.3%-
Vacancy rate1.1%0.8%
Population12,58725,797

Brisbane City vs Cotton Tree: what the numbers say

The median house price is $1.2M in Brisbane City and $1.2M in Cotton Tree, so Cotton Tree is the cheaper entry point.

For units, Brisbane City sits at a median of $770K against $975K in Cotton Tree, which makes Brisbane City the more affordable unit market and Cotton Tree the pricier one.

On cash flow, Cotton Tree leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 3.59%, compared with 3.36% in Brisbane City, a gap of 0.23 percentage points.

Rental vacancy is 0.8% in Cotton Tree and 1.1% in Brisbane City, so landlords in Cotton Tree face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.

Cotton Tree is the bigger suburb, with a population of 25,797 against 12,587, roughly 2.0 times the size of Brisbane City; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Cotton Tree for rental income, Cotton Tree for a lower purchase price, Cotton Tree 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