Skip to main content

Burnside vs Redcliffe

Property investment comparison - Burnside, QLD 4560 vs Redcliffe, QLD 4020

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Burnside wins 4, Redcliffe wins 1. 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.

MetricBurnsideRedcliffe
Median house price$1.0M$1.0M
Median unit price-$870K
Gross rental yield (houses)4.09%3.25%
Gross rental yield (units)4.01%3.76%
1-year house growth+15.7%estimate+14.5%
3-year house growth-+38.4%
Vacancy rate2.9%1.6%
Population3,10410,460

Burnside vs Redcliffe: what the numbers say

The median house price is $1.0M in Burnside and $1.0M in Redcliffe, so Burnside is the cheaper entry point.

On cash flow, Burnside leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 4.09%, compared with 3.25% in Redcliffe, a gap of 0.84 percentage points.

Over the past year house prices moved +15.7% in Burnside (an estimate) and +14.5% in Redcliffe, so recent momentum favours Burnside, although both suburbs recorded growth.

Rental vacancy is 1.6% in Redcliffe and 2.9% in Burnside, so landlords in Redcliffe face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.

Redcliffe is the bigger suburb, with a population of 10,460 against 3,104, roughly 3.4 times the size of Burnside; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

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