Skip to main content

Chelmer vs Mutdapilly

Property investment comparison - Chelmer, QLD 4068 vs Mutdapilly, QLD 4307

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Chelmer wins 2, Mutdapilly 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.

MetricChelmerMutdapilly
Median house price$1.8M$1.7M
Median unit price-$390K
Gross rental yield (houses)3.01%1.40%
Gross rental yield (units)5.49%3.36%
1-year house growth-1.7%estimate+14.0%
3-year house growth--
Vacancy rate2.0%1.6%
Population3,325308

Chelmer vs Mutdapilly: what the numbers say

The median house price is $1.8M in Chelmer and $1.7M in Mutdapilly, so Mutdapilly is the cheaper entry point, with Chelmer houses about 2% dearer.

On cash flow, Chelmer leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 3.01%, compared with 1.40% in Mutdapilly, a gap of 1.61 percentage points.

Over the past year house prices moved -1.7% in Chelmer (an estimate) and +14.0% in Mutdapilly, so recent momentum favours Mutdapilly, while Chelmer went backwards.

Rental vacancy is 1.6% in Mutdapilly and 2.0% in Chelmer, so landlords in Mutdapilly face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.

Chelmer is the bigger suburb, with a population of 3,325 against 308, roughly 11 times the size of Mutdapilly; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Chelmer for rental income, Mutdapilly for a lower purchase price, Mutdapilly for recent price momentum, Mutdapilly 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