Skip to main content

Brunswick vs Vermont

Property investment comparison - Brunswick, VIC 3056 vs Vermont, VIC 3133

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Brunswick wins 4, Vermont 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.

MetricBrunswickVermont
Median house price$1.3M$1.3M
Median unit price$600K$895K
Gross rental yield (houses)3.36%-
Gross rental yield (units)5.19%3.49%
1-year house growth+0.1%estimate+0.4%
3-year house growth-+9.7%
Vacancy rate1.0%1.5%
Population24,89610,993

Brunswick vs Vermont: what the numbers say

The median house price is $1.3M in Brunswick and $1.3M in Vermont, so Brunswick is the cheaper entry point, with Vermont houses about 1% dearer.

For units, Brunswick sits at a median of $600K against $895K in Vermont, which makes Brunswick the more affordable unit market and Vermont the pricier one.

Over the past year house prices moved +0.1% in Brunswick (an estimate) and +0.4% in Vermont, so recent momentum favours Vermont, although both suburbs recorded growth.

Rental vacancy is 1.0% in Brunswick and 1.5% in Vermont, so landlords in Brunswick face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.

Brunswick is the bigger suburb, with a population of 24,896 against 10,993, roughly 2.3 times the size of Vermont; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Brunswick for a lower purchase price, Vermont for recent price momentum, Brunswick 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