Skip to main content

Bulla vs Fairfield

Property investment comparison - Bulla, VIC 3428 vs Fairfield, VIC 3078

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Bulla wins 1, Fairfield wins 4. 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.

MetricBullaFairfield
Median house price$1.7M$1.8M
Median unit price$650K-
Gross rental yield (houses)1.87%2.59%
Gross rental yield (units)4.38%4.42%
1-year house growth-10.6%+6.1%
3-year house growth-+13.2%
Vacancy rate2.6%1.0%
Population6686,535

Bulla vs Fairfield: what the numbers say

The median house price is $1.7M in Bulla and $1.8M in Fairfield, so Bulla is the cheaper entry point, with Fairfield houses about 4% dearer.

On cash flow, Fairfield leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 2.59%, compared with 1.87% in Bulla, a gap of 0.72 percentage points.

Over the past year house prices moved -10.6% in Bulla and +6.1% in Fairfield, so recent momentum favours Fairfield, while Bulla went backwards.

Rental vacancy is 1.0% in Fairfield and 2.6% in Bulla, so landlords in Fairfield face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.

Fairfield is the bigger suburb, with a population of 6,535 against 668, roughly 10 times the size of Bulla; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

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