Skip to main content

Bulla vs Carnegie

Property investment comparison - Bulla, VIC 3428 vs Carnegie, VIC 3163

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Bulla wins 0, Carnegie wins 6. 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.

MetricBullaCarnegie
Median house price$1.7M$1.7M
Median unit price$650K$640K
Gross rental yield (houses)1.87%2.86%
Gross rental yield (units)4.38%4.89%
1-year house growth-10.6%+1.0%
3-year house growth-+0.1%
Vacancy rate2.6%2.0%
Population66817,909

Bulla vs Carnegie: what the numbers say

The median house price is $1.7M in Bulla and $1.7M in Carnegie, so Carnegie is the cheaper entry point, with Bulla houses about 3% dearer.

For units, Bulla sits at a median of $650K against $640K in Carnegie, which makes Carnegie the more affordable unit market and Bulla the pricier one.

On cash flow, Carnegie leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 2.86%, compared with 1.87% in Bulla, a gap of 0.99 percentage points.

Over the past year house prices moved -10.6% in Bulla and +1.0% in Carnegie, so recent momentum favours Carnegie, while Bulla went backwards.

Rental vacancy is 2.0% in Carnegie and 2.6% in Bulla, so landlords in Carnegie face less competition for tenants.

Carnegie is the bigger suburb, with a population of 17,909 against 668, roughly 27 times the size of Bulla; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Carnegie for rental income, Carnegie for a lower purchase price, Carnegie for recent price momentum, Carnegie 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