Skip to main content

Carramar vs Warwick

Property investment comparison - Carramar, WA 6031 vs Warwick, WA 6024

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Carramar wins 4, Warwick wins 2. 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.

MetricCarramarWarwick
Median house price$1.1M$1.1M
Median unit price$880K$630K
Gross rental yield (houses)4.23%3.85%
Gross rental yield (units)2.89%2.70%
1-year house growth+23.5%-
3-year house growth+67.3%+63.6%
Vacancy rate0.6%0.3%
Population7,1783,858

Carramar vs Warwick: what the numbers say

The median house price is $1.1M in Carramar and $1.1M in Warwick, so Carramar is the cheaper entry point.

For units, Carramar sits at a median of $880K against $630K in Warwick, which makes Warwick the more affordable unit market and Carramar the pricier one.

On cash flow, Carramar leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 4.23%, compared with 3.85% in Warwick, a gap of 0.38 percentage points.

Looking back three years, Carramar houses are +67.3% and Warwick houses +63.6%, so Carramar has compounded faster than Warwick over the longer window.

Rental vacancy is 0.3% in Warwick and 0.6% in Carramar, so landlords in Warwick face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.

Carramar is the bigger suburb, with a population of 7,178 against 3,858, larger than Warwick; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Carramar for rental income, Carramar for a lower purchase price, Warwick 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