Bushmead vs Wilson
Property investment comparison - Bushmead, WA 6055 vs Wilson, WA 6107
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Bushmead wins 0, Wilson 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 | Bushmead | Wilson |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $1.2M | $1.2M |
| Median unit price | $845K | - |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 4.00% | - |
| Gross rental yield (units) | 3.12% | 6.08% |
| 1-year house growth | +19.0% | - |
| 3-year house growth | +65.2% | - |
| Vacancy rate | 1.8% | 0.9% |
| Population | 677 | 6,608 |
Bushmead vs Wilson: what the numbers say
The median house price is $1.2M in Bushmead and $1.2M in Wilson, so Wilson is the cheaper entry point, with Bushmead houses about 1% dearer.
Rental vacancy is 0.9% in Wilson and 1.8% in Bushmead, so landlords in Wilson face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.
Wilson is the bigger suburb, with a population of 6,608 against 677, roughly 10 times the size of Bushmead; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Wilson for a lower purchase price, Wilson 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