Burnside vs Clontarf
Property investment comparison - Burnside, QLD 4560 vs Clontarf, QLD 4019
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Burnside wins 0, Clontarf wins 3. 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.
| Metric | Burnside | Clontarf |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $1.0M | $1.0M |
| Median unit price | - | - |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 4.09% | - |
| Gross rental yield (units) | 4.01% | - |
| 1-year house growth | +15.7%estimate | +17.0% |
| 3-year house growth | - | +39.9% |
| Vacancy rate | 2.9% | 0.6% |
| Population | 3,104 | 8,446 |
Burnside vs Clontarf: what the numbers say
The median house price is $1.0M in Burnside and $1.0M in Clontarf, so Clontarf is the cheaper entry point.
Over the past year house prices moved +15.7% in Burnside (an estimate) and +17.0% in Clontarf, so recent momentum favours Clontarf, although both suburbs recorded growth.
Rental vacancy is 0.6% in Clontarf and 2.9% in Burnside, so landlords in Clontarf face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.
Clontarf is the bigger suburb, with a population of 8,446 against 3,104, roughly 2.7 times the size of Burnside; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Clontarf for a lower purchase price, Clontarf for recent price momentum, Clontarf for the tighter rental market. Which matters more depends on whether the investor is buying for cash flow, capital growth or affordability.
Keep exploring
- National investment guide - top suburbs across every metric
- Take the suburb finder quiz - 5 questions to match your goals
- How our investment score works
- Property investment glossary - every term defined
Compare any 2-4 Australian suburbs
Build your own multi-suburb comparison with the full interactive tool.
Open interactive comparison