Buccan vs Pelican Waters

Houses cost about the same in both suburbs: the median house price is $1.6M in Buccan and $1.6M in Pelican Waters.

For units, Buccan sits at a median of $395K against $1.0M in Pelican Waters, which makes Buccan the more affordable unit market and Pelican Waters the pricier one.

On cash flow, Pelican Waters leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 3.30%, compared with 3.19% in Buccan, a gap of 0.11 percentage points.

Over the past year house prices moved +12.7% in Buccan and +12.9% in Pelican Waters, so recent momentum favours Pelican Waters, although both suburbs recorded growth.

Looking back three years, Buccan houses are +57.4% and Pelican Waters houses +26.0%, so Buccan has compounded faster than Pelican Waters over the longer window.

Rental vacancy is 1.5% in Pelican Waters and 2.6% in Buccan, so landlords in Pelican Waters face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.

Pelican Waters is the bigger suburb, with a population of 7,393 against 2,134, roughly 3.5 times the size of Buccan; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Pelican Waters for rental income, Pelican Waters for recent price momentum, Pelican Waters for the tighter rental market. Which matters more depends on whether the investor is buying for cash flow, capital growth or affordability.