Skip to main content

Caversham vs Queens Park

Property investment comparison - Caversham, WA 6055 vs Queens Park, WA 6107

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Caversham wins 0, Queens 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.

MetricCavershamQueens Park
Median house price$920K$920K
Median unit price-$640K
Gross rental yield (houses)4.40%-
Gross rental yield (units)4.96%-
1-year house growth+14.3%+22.8%
3-year house growth+68.1%+75.4%
Vacancy rate1.8%1.0%
Population7,4197,268

Caversham vs Queens Park: what the numbers say

Houses cost about the same in both suburbs: the median house price is $920K in Caversham and $920K in Queens Park.

Over the past year house prices moved +14.3% in Caversham and +22.8% in Queens Park, so recent momentum favours Queens Park, although both suburbs recorded growth.

Looking back three years, Caversham houses are +68.1% and Queens Park houses +75.4%, so Queens Park has compounded faster than Caversham over the longer window.

Rental vacancy is 1.0% in Queens Park and 1.8% in Caversham, so landlords in Queens Park face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.

Caversham is the bigger suburb, with a population of 7,419 against 7,268, larger than Queens Park; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Queens Park for recent price momentum, Queens Park 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