Skip to main content

Bulgarra vs Coodanup

Property investment comparison - Bulgarra, WA 6714 vs Coodanup, WA 6210

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Bulgarra wins 4, Coodanup wins 0. 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.

MetricBulgarraCoodanup
Median house price$700K$700K
Median unit price$350K-
Gross rental yield (houses)9.35%4.51%
Gross rental yield (units)11.37%5.38%
1-year house growth+21.4%estimate+16.7%
3-year house growth-+76.7%
Vacancy rate1.0%1.4%
Population2,9904,366

Bulgarra vs Coodanup: what the numbers say

Houses cost about the same in both suburbs: the median house price is $700K in Bulgarra and $700K in Coodanup.

On cash flow, Bulgarra leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 9.35%, compared with 4.51% in Coodanup, a gap of 4.84 percentage points.

Over the past year house prices moved +21.4% in Bulgarra (an estimate) and +16.7% in Coodanup, so recent momentum favours Bulgarra, although both suburbs recorded growth.

Rental vacancy is 1.0% in Bulgarra and 1.4% in Coodanup, so landlords in Bulgarra face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.

Coodanup is the bigger suburb, with a population of 4,366 against 2,990, larger than Bulgarra; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Bulgarra for rental income, Bulgarra for recent price momentum, Bulgarra 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