Charlton vs Paschendale
Property investment comparison - Charlton, VIC 3525 vs Paschendale, VIC 3315
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Charlton wins 1, Paschendale wins 1. 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 | Charlton | Paschendale |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $330K | $330K |
| Median unit price | $330K | - |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 6.95% | 6.80% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | 2.49% | - |
| 1-year house growth | +8.2% | - |
| 3-year house growth | +0.0% | - |
| Vacancy rate | 1.7% | 1.6% |
| Population | 1,095 | 33 |
Charlton vs Paschendale: what the numbers say
Houses cost about the same in both suburbs: the median house price is $330K in Charlton and $330K in Paschendale.
On cash flow, Charlton leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 6.95%, compared with 6.80% in Paschendale, a gap of 0.15 percentage points.
Rental vacancy is the same in both, at 1.7%.
Charlton is the bigger suburb, with a population of 1,095 against 33, roughly 33 times the size of Paschendale; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Charlton for rental income. 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