Cedar Vale vs Running Creek
Property investment comparison - Cedar Vale, QLD 4285 vs Running Creek, QLD 4287
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Cedar Vale wins 3, Running 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 | Cedar Vale | Running Creek |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $1.1M | $1.2M |
| Median unit price | $2.8M | - |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 3.09% | 2.66% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | - | - |
| 1-year house growth | +17.8%estimate | - |
| 3-year house growth | - | - |
| Vacancy rate | 0.8% | 3.5% |
| Population | 2,856 | 146 |
Cedar Vale vs Running Creek: what the numbers say
The median house price is $1.1M in Cedar Vale and $1.2M in Running Creek, so Cedar Vale is the cheaper entry point.
On cash flow, Cedar Vale leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 3.09%, compared with 2.66% in Running Creek, a gap of 0.43 percentage points.
Rental vacancy is 0.8% in Cedar Vale and 3.5% in Running Creek, so landlords in Cedar Vale face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.
Cedar Vale is the bigger suburb, with a population of 2,856 against 146, roughly 20 times the size of Running Creek; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Cedar Vale for rental income, Cedar Vale for a lower purchase price, Cedar Vale 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