Carnegie vs Pound Creek
Property investment comparison - Carnegie, VIC 3163 vs Pound Creek, VIC 3996
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Carnegie wins 3, Pound Creek wins 0. 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 | Carnegie | Pound Creek |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $1.7M | $1.7M |
| Median unit price | $640K | - |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 2.86% | 1.70% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | 4.89% | - |
| 1-year house growth | +1.0% | - |
| 3-year house growth | +0.1% | - |
| Vacancy rate | 2.0% | 3.6% |
| Population | 17,909 | 126 |
Carnegie vs Pound Creek: what the numbers say
The median house price is $1.7M in Carnegie and $1.7M in Pound Creek, so Carnegie is the cheaper entry point, with Pound Creek houses about 4% dearer.
On cash flow, Carnegie leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 2.86%, compared with 1.70% in Pound Creek, a gap of 1.16 percentage points.
Rental vacancy is 2.0% in Carnegie and 3.6% in Pound Creek, so landlords in Carnegie face less competition for tenants.
Carnegie is the bigger suburb, with a population of 17,909 against 126, roughly 142 times the size of Pound Creek; 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 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