Skip to main content

Carnegie vs Wonga Park

Property investment comparison - Carnegie, VIC 3163 vs Wonga Park, VIC 3115

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Carnegie wins 2, Wonga Park 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.

MetricCarnegieWonga Park
Median house price$1.7M$1.6M
Median unit price$640K-
Gross rental yield (houses)2.86%2.92%
Gross rental yield (units)4.89%2.54%
1-year house growth+1.0%+9.1%estimate
3-year house growth+0.1%-
Vacancy rate2.0%5.0%
Population17,9093,843

Carnegie vs Wonga Park: what the numbers say

The median house price is $1.7M in Carnegie and $1.6M in Wonga Park, so Wonga Park is the cheaper entry point, with Carnegie houses about 1% dearer.

On cash flow, Wonga Park leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 2.92%, compared with 2.86% in Carnegie, a gap of 0.06 percentage points.

Over the past year house prices moved +1.0% in Carnegie and +9.1% in Wonga Park (an estimate), so recent momentum favours Wonga Park, although both suburbs recorded growth.

Rental vacancy is 2.0% in Carnegie and 5.0% in Wonga Park, so landlords in Carnegie face less competition for tenants.

Carnegie is the bigger suburb, with a population of 17,909 against 3,843, roughly 4.7 times the size of Wonga Park; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Wonga Park for rental income, Wonga Park for a lower purchase price, Wonga Park for recent price momentum, 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

Compare any 2-4 Australian suburbs

Build your own multi-suburb comparison with the full interactive tool.

Open interactive comparison